OPINION

If the Supreme Court in the use of the word “trauma” means that the injury must be caused by a direct blow of some character, making the injury apparent, as some language of the Supreme Court would indicate, then the commission was correct as a matter of law, and the injury would not be compensable. We do not feel justified in going that far under the present rules and decisions. We are rather inclined to follow the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Industrial Commission v Polcen, 121 Oh St 377, 169 NE 305, wherein the Supreme Court held that a severe coughing spell, resulting in hernia, constituted an injury compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. If this be the law, then certainly over-exertion causing heart lesion would be compensable. Smith’s case was not one of working under conditions and circumstances calculated to develop illness. The lesion was not caused by the prolonged action of any ulterior force or conditions, but, as far as the evidence is concerned, was a direct result of over-exertion in the frequent, successive climbing of the steps to the top of the elevator and down, six or eight times in rapid succession. If there could be such a thing as compensable injury, in the absence of apparent traumatic result, this case seems to be one.

*705 We feel that the decision in the Polcen case, supra, and the reasons stated-in the opinion, are sufficient upon which to sustain the judgment in this case.

Judgment affirmed.