Burnight v. Industrial Accident Commission

Petitioner seeks to review an order of the respondent commission made after reconsideration, annulling an award to her of a death benefit in the sum of $10,000.

Question Presented

Was there any substantial evidence that the suicide of petitioner ’s husband was not proximately caused by the industrial injury suffered by him?

Record

Decedent was employed by W. P. Fuller and Company as a paint chemist from 1935 until his death in September, 1957, except for two periods of military service in 1942 to 1946 and 1951 to 1952. In 1951 he was a patient in a service hospital for about three months, suffering from what was diagnosed as manic depressive psychosis with schizophrenic and paranoid tendencies. The hospital records state that this illness was not a result of or aggravated by his service. He received a medical discharge.

In June, 1957, he was sent by his employer to Ensenada", Mexico, to supervise the conversion of a recently acquired paint plant. While there he experienced many difficulties and

About 12:15 p. m. he registered at a small, cheap hotel on Sixth Street, stating that he would be there “just tonight.” His signature on the registration sheet was written in a scrawl so that the clerk had to ask how it was spelled. He gave a fictitious Los Angeles address as his residence. The next morning he was found dead, sitting in the bathtub which was half full of bloody water. The radial artery of his right wrist was severed. A single-edge razor blade lay on the

Petitioner, the widow, filed an application for compensation benefits. After hearings the referee found that decedent “was subjected to stress situations arising out of and occurring in the course of his employment which precipitated the nervous breakdown and manic depressive psychosis on September 6, 1957, and said injury proximately caused the death of said employee by suicide” and awarded petitioner a burial allowance, medical reimbursement, attorneys’ fees and a death benefit of $10,000. On reconsideration, the commission annulled the referee’s findings and award, found that decedent for several months prior to September 6, 1957, “was subjected to stress situations arising out of and occurring in the course of his employment which precipitated his nervous breakdown and manic depressive psychosis on September 6, 1957.” The commission further found: “The death of said employee by suicide on September 27, 1958 [sic], was not proximately caused by the injury herein.” It then awarded petitioner only medical reimbursement and a modified attorneys’ fee.

Was the Employee’s Suicide the Proximate Result oe the Industrial Injury?

Under well established rules our task is to determine whether there is any substantial evidence that it was not, for if there is any such evidence we are bound by the commission’s findings. There was testimony that prior to his assignment to Mexico decedent was a gregarious individual and a “normal human being.” There is ample evidence (in fact, none to the contrary) that, as found by the commission, decedent’s “nervous breakdown and manic depressive psychosis” was precipitated by and in the course of his employment. The finding on this subject is not contested.

This brings us to the evidence concerning the suicide. Doctor Whitsell reported: “It is my opinion that his suicide occurred as a result of a mental illness which was precipitated by the unusual stress associated with the work to which he was assigned in Mexico.” Doctor Finley, a psychiatrist on whose testimony apparently the commission made its finding that decedent’s suicide was a voluntary act, testified: “Oh, I believe he carried this out [the suicide] on a volitional basis, because he was depressed and this is one of the concerns we have for this type of patient, that they will plan to take their

Were this a civil action for damages, the joining together of the commission’s finding that decedent’s manic depressive condition was caused by his employment with the testimony of Doctor Whitsell that the suicide was the result of the overwork, and Doctor Finley’s testimony that suicide is one of the results of such a condition for which the doctors have to look out, a court would be compelled to find that the industrial injury was at least a contributing factor in decedent’s death, even though, as opined by Doctor Finley, decedent’s act in taking his own life was a voluntary one, in the sense that he committed it with full knowledge of what he was doing.

Recently this court, in Tate v. Canonica, 180 Cal.App.2d 898 [ 5 Cal.Rptr. 28 ], dealt with the question of liability for suicide resulting from a civil injury. There we pointed out that originally in this country the rule in civil actions was that there could be no liability for a negligent act causing a mental condition resulting in suicide, regardless of whether the one taking his own life was sane or insane. Later the rule was changed so that if the suicide was committed

But this is a proceeding under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, in which section 3600, Labor Code, in effect prohibits recovery, where the injury is “intentionally self-inflicted.” Thus, the real question in the ease is, was there substantial evidence that the act of suicide here was “intentionally self-inflicted” in the meaning of the section? Put another way, the question is whether the fact that decedent knew what he was doing made his death an intentionally self-inflicted one.

Generally, it has been held in workmen’s compensation, cases, “Where the statute excludes compensation for intern) tionally self-inflicted injuries, death by suicide constitutes - such an injury. The right to compensation, however, máydepend on whether an employee was sane or insane at the

“Where the suicide of an employee is directly caused by his injuries and their consequences, his death is not intentionally self-inflicted or wilful so as to bar compensation, where he kills himself under compulsion of an irresistible or uncontrollable impulse, or while in a delirium or frenzy or where the injuries suffered by the deceased result in his becoming devoid of normal judgment and dominated by a disturbance of mind.” (99 C.J.S., § 264, pp. 911-912.)

Campbell, Workmen’s Compensation, volume 1, page 236, states it this way: “But where the resulting insanity is such as to cause suicide through a voluntary wilful choice determined by a moderately intelligent mental power which knows the purpose and the physical effect of the suicidal act, even though the choice is dominated and ruled by a disordered mind, then there is a new and independent agency which breaks the chain of causation arising from the injury.” Hanna, “The Law of Employees’ Injuries and Workmen’s Compensation,” volume 2, page 187, states that California adheres to the general rule as expressed in the two above quotations. The California Industrial Accident Commission has followed that rule in seven cases, in five of which writs of certiorari were denied by the District Courts of Appeal without opinion. With those exceptions, the question as to the effect of suicide in workmen’s compensation cases has never been passed upon by our courts.

In spite of the general rule and the decisions of the commission, we are not persuaded that the mere fact that the employee’s act of suicide was a volitional one in that he knew what he was doing when he committed it constitutes the act one that is “intentionally self-inflicted” (Lab. Code, § 3600) or one which should cause a denial of compensation. We think that the test is and should be, not did the employee know what he was doing, but was the compulsion or the impulse to commit suicide one which he could not resist. In the general rule above mentioned the courts practically have stated this very concept, “. . . where he kills himself under compulsion of an irresistible or uncontrollable impulse,” yet they have been too narrow in applying it. They have, in effect, incorporated in it M’Naghten’s Rule, namely, did the suicide have sufficient mental capacity to know what he was doing.

The court in Whitehead v. Keene Roofing Co. (Fla., 1949), 43 So.2d 464 , seems to us to have adopted a more realistic and reasonable view than that expressed in the general rule. In that case the workman fell from a roof on which he was working and sustained serious bodily injuries. He suffered excruciating pain in his leg, back and head, and developed a paralysis of the arm, which he was advised would take some time to clear up. Prior to the accident he had been goodnatured and had a phlegmatic disposition, but after the accident became morose and ill-humored. About three months after the injury he took poison, and when asked before he died why he did so he said that “he had simply ‘gone nuts.’ ” (P. 465.) The Florida commission awarded death benefits. The trial court reversed the award because the “deceased was aware of what he was doing at the time he took the poison and of the consequences of his act and that ‘at the time his mental condition was such that his intention primarily to take his life was wilful’ ” and therefore compensation should be denied under a Florida statute which provided that no compensation could be paid “ ‘. . . if the injury was occasioned primarily ... by the wilful intention of the employee to injure or kill himself . . .’ ” (P. 465.) The Florida Supreme Court reversed this decision and ordered death benefits to be paid the widow, saying that the trial court’s ruling was not “in accordance with the intent and purpose of the Workmen’s Compensation Act which ... is to provide for injured workmen and, in the event of their death from injuries received in their employment, their dependents, so that the burden might not fall on society but on the industry served.” (P.465.)

In most cases it is unrealistic to determine that suicide is an “independent” intervening cause. A conscious volition to produce death does not necessarily make the suicide a separate agency unconnected with the primary injury, nor an intentionally or wilfully inflicted self-injury. The force set in motion by the original injury may be, and in most cases is, the real cause of the act of suicide. Such forces are employment connected.

A study of the cases, both those applying the majority and those applying the minority rule, indicates that there is an increasing number of situations in which suicide is causally linked to industrial injury, in practically all of which the suicide is the result of a manic depressive state resulting from the injury. It is a contradiction in terms to state that there is no causal connection between an injury which causes a manic depressive state and a suicide which results from that state even though there be a conscious volition connected with it. Volition may be dominated by the mental condition. It is the injury which sets the forces in motion which ultimately bring about the suicide.

In Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, volume 1, section 36.30, page 508, it is said: “The question whether the actor appreciated the consequences of his act should not be decisive on the fundamental question whether that act was

Modern psychiatry knows that a manic depressive condition operates to break down rational mental processes, placing the person afflicted in a mental state in which death actually seems more attractive than living, and in which he may not only have a conscious volition to produce death, but be eager to do so.

If it can be shown by competent expert testimony that without the injury there would have been no suicide, the injury is the proximate cause of the death. In our case the testimony of Doctor Finley to the effect that a manic depressive patient will plan to take his own life and that decedent planned his suicide over a period of several hours in which he was depressed, practically provides this evidence, even though decedent knew what he was doing. Both the commission and Doctor Finley felt that this latter fact would bar recovery and therefore no attempt was made to learn whether or not the manic depressive state which was caused by the industrial injury was of the type which provided a force which, although not a frenzy, was nevertheless irresistible. That the commission was applying the majority rule is shown by the report of the panel on decision after reconsideration “that the insanity of Decedent was not such as to cause him to take his life without conscious volition, but, rather, through voluntary choice, breaking the chain of causation arising from the injury. See Hanna, The Law of Employee Injuries and Workmen’s Compensation, vol. 2, page 187. The death of the employee was therefore not the proximate result of the industrial injury herein.” The reference to Hanna there states: “On the question of whether self-destruction following mental derangement caused by industrial injury is compensable, California adheres to the general rule

Section 3600, Labor Code, requires the self-inflicted act to be intentional. Even in criminal eases the important element of “intent” requires “the sound mind and discretion of the accused.” (Pen. Code, § 21.) There can be no intention to commit an act in the sense of the Labor Code section if the mind of the actor is such that it is not sound and that because of compulsion due to that condition he is unable to exercise a sound discretion. While the commission found that decedent’s act was consciously volitional it did not find that it was “intentional” in the sense that his mind was sound enough for him to exercise a sound discretion and in the sense of the rule herein discussed.

We believe that in view of the liberal requirements of the California Workmen’s Compensation Act the minority rule should be followed, and that the commission and the parties should determine this case in view of that rule. Both because the commission did not view the evidence in the light of that rule, and there is no evidence upon which the commission could have based a finding under that rule adverse to the petitioner, the award must be set aside and a further hearing be held in which the matter will be approached and determined in the light of that rule.

In our case there is no evidence that decedent would have taken his life were it not for the mental condition which the commission found was due to the industrial injury. On the contrary, even the expert relied upon by the commission stated that persons in a manic depressive state will plan to take their own lives. It is unreasonable and unrealistic to hold that suicide occurring when the employee is in such a state

In Wilder v. Russell Library Co. (1927), 107 Conn. 56 [ 139 A. 644 , 56 A.L.R 455 ], the facts were quite similar to those in this case. The decedent there was a librarian. “She was very conscientious in her work, temperamentally overconscientious and zealous for the good of the library, working the number of hours required of her by the employer, and also working many more hours at home evenings on work connected with her library duties, in her desire to carry out her ideas and hopes for the betterment of the library . . . Her position carried with it unusual responsibilities, causing her not only excessive labor but excessive worries . . .

“The decedent was subject by heredity to a predisposition to mental trouble. The long hours she worked caused excessive fatigue. A physical breakdown occurred, which was followed by a nervous breakdown.” (Pp. 645-646 [139 A.].) She committed suicide.

In our ease decedent was overconscientious in his work, worked excessive hours, had responsibilities that caused him excessive labor and worries. Although not subject to mental trouble by heredity, he had had mental trouble before. The long hours of work caused him excessive fatigue. A physical and then a mental breakdown followed. He committed suicide. While the Wilder decision states that the librarian’s mental condition amounted to “insanity” and that her act was due to an “uncontrollable impulse,” it does not appear what the type or extent of that insanity was. In holding that the death was the result of the industrial injury the court stated that in determining whether there is a direct causal connection between an industrial injury and a suicide, the trier of fact must, in effect, answer this question, was the injury a proximate cause of the suicide or was the suicide merely contemporaneous or coincident with the injury ? This is but another way of determining whether or not the employee’s impulse to commit suicide was an uncontrollable one.

It is evident that the commission believed that the mere fact that decedent realized the nature and effect of his act

Tobriner, J., and Duniway, J., concurred.

The petitions of respondents Industrial Accident Commission and Fireman’s Fund Indemnity Company for a hearing by the Supreme Court were denied August 10, 1960. Schauer, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.