the lung or heart; that he appeared to be healthy and everything was found normal, except that he discovered in the front lower part of the left chest what he called "friction ralls," or a "kind of respiration which has been found in conditions of dry pleurisy" and so made that diagnosis, for which they applied adhesive plasters and gave him some internal medicine; that plaintiff called about half a dozen times within the ensuing month, during which he was under their care, and says, "After a week or two, then this pleuritic condition disappeared so that at the end of that time we considered him a cured man.". Dr. Panzner, the only physician who discovered dry pleurisy, not only states it was eliminated within a month and plaintiff a cured man, but as there was no fracture, old or otherwise, to traumatize the pleura "it couldn't be due to any injury." Dr. Wetherell, who furnished the certificate accompanying plaintiff's petition to reopen the case, testified to examining him twice, found no dry pleurisy, but did find a condition of "gastroptosis, or an enlargement and downward displacement of the stomach," which he said was a gradual development and might be caused by "overeating, indigestion, heavy lifting, and a dozen things would cause it." He refused to state or express an opinion that the gastroptosis he diagnosed was traceable to the accident of January 5, 1918. The nearest to an opinion of any answers pointed out or found are: "Q. Do you think that the abnormal condition of this man's stomach is caused by injury? "A. Yes. * * * "Q. Would the fall of a heavy body against the stomach of a person cause gastroptosis? "A. It may or it may not." But even this was negatived by other answers as follows: "Q. And from your examination are you willing to say that this condition resulted from an injury? "A. I could not say it did. ** * * "Q. What would you say would cause the injuries complained of by Mr. Weidner? "A. I do not know." In answer to a hypothetical question by plaintiff's counsel, based on certain facts in the history of the case in connection with his physical examination, he replied, "No, I cannot state that the condition I found was the result of the accident at all." Dr. Benmosche testified that plaintiff had come to him for treatment about three weeks before; that he took several X-ray pictures and his findings were, "that his stomach is about normal, slightly enlarged, no ulcerations, ptosis of the transverse colon, * and a shadow in the region of the gall bladder, which is due to some dense body in the gall bladder." "Q. Did you find any gastroptosis? "A. Very slight if any—not a pathological ptosis." He also stated that he found the transverse colon "toast," or "fallen lower," which was not at all uncommon. In answer to the question of whether the pressure of a heavy body, of between 300 and 400 pounds, would tend to intensify the conditions he found, he answered that it might. On cross-examination he said he did not wish to be understood that this condition of the bowel was the result of an accident. This proceeding is an application by plaintiff to reopen a case which he states was closed by a settlement receipt which he signed acknowledging payment in full. Upon him rested the burden of proof to show both that he was entitled to have his case reopened and that not having recovered fully from the accidental injury he is entitled to further payment. While he alleges in his application that he signed the settlement receipt under a misapprehension as to what he was signing, the testimony is silent on that subject. He does not so testify, nor that any duress, fraud or misrepresentation was practiced upon him, by any one at the time or that it was not then read to him. Even accepting as proof the allegations in his petition, the situation, except the statement he could not read English, is closely analogous to that in Winn v. Adjustable Table Co., 193 Mich. 127, an industrial accident case in which this court said: "It is not shown that any deceit was practiced by the agent of the insurance company in obtaining the agreement for compensation. Claimant says that he supposed it was a receipt when he signed it, but that he did not ask to have it read, nor did he read it himself, although he was competent to do so. Under these circumstances he will not be heard to deny the validity of the agreement. Sanborn v. Sanborn, 104 Mich. 180. But such an agreement may undoubtedly be reviewed by the industrial accident board upon a proper showing, under section 13, pt. 3, of the act. (2 Comp. Laws 1915, § 5466)." The only specific injuries resulting from the accident ever claimed by plaintiff in his notice of claim to defendant or his petition to the board are dry pleurisy and gastroptosis. The first is affirmatively eliminated by the testimony of Dr. Panzner, the only one of the physicians who discovered it. Dr. Wetherell, who testified to gastroptosis, which he said was a gradual development and might be caused by more than a dozen different things, refused to testify that it was caused by, or to venture the opinion it was traceable to, the accident. Dr. Benmosche stated he found plaintiff's stomach normal, though slightly enlarged, and did not want to be understood that the not uncommon falling of the colon which he noticed resulted from the accident. Considered in its most favorable light plaintiff's proof furnishes no legal evidence to support the finding of the board that his injuries, or infirmities, which plaintiff claimed and sought to prove, resulted from or were attributable to the accident in question. The order appealed from is therefore reversed. BIRD, C. J., and OSTRANDER, MOORE, BROOKE, FELLOWS, STONE, and KUHN, JJ., concurred. DOHERTY v. TOWNSHIP OF GROSSE ISLE. 1. MASTER AND SERVANT-WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT-FINDINGS OF INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD-CONCLUSIVENESS. Under the workmen's compensation law, the findings of the industrial accident board supported by evidence are not reviewable by the Supreme Court; the only debatable questions along that line being in the field of inference, or permissible deductions of the existence of essential facts not sustained by direct testimony but reasonably inferable from other facts of which there is direct proof. 2. SAME-EVIDENCE-COMPETENCY. The decision of the industrial accident board that the acci- 3. SAME 4. SAME-HUSBAND AND WIFE-CONCLUSIVENESS AS TO SUPPORT— STATUTES. Under section 6, part 2, of the workmen's compensation act (2 Comp. Laws 1915, § 5436), where decedent and his wife were living together as husband and wife at the 'See notes in L. R. A. 1916A, 40, 232; L. R. A. 1917D, 114. time of his injury and death, testimony as to whether he was supporting his wife, in proceedings by her for compensation for his death, became immaterial. 5. SAME-CAUSE OF DEATH-FINDING OF BOARD-CONCLUSIVENESS. Where the record as a whole gave room for the inference drawn by the board that death resulted from the accident to decedent, its conclusion will not be reversed. Certiorari to Industrial Accident Board. Submitted February 5, 1919. (Docket No. 43.) (Docket No. 43.) Decided May 29, 1919. Bridget Doherty presented her claim for compensation against the township of Grosse Isle for the accidental death of her husband in defendant's employ. From an order awarding compensation, defendant brings certiorari. Affirmed. Orla B. Taylor, for appellant. Frederick T. Witmire (Joseph A. Moynihan, of counsel), for appellee. STEERE, J. The State industrial accident board found and held in this case that plaintiff's husband, John Doherty, sustained an accidental injury while in defendant's employ, arising out of and in the course of his employment, which was the "proximate" cause of his death; that plaintiff was living with him as his wife at the time of his injury and under the workmen's compensation law conclusively dependent upon him for support; that as he was injured before Act No. 41, Pub. Acts 1917, went into effect compensation should be computed according to the "so-called 300day rule," and awarded plaintiff $9.09 per week for 300 weeks with deceased's reasonable expense of hospital and medical attendance from the time of his injury until his death. 205-Mich.-38. |