74 P.2d 708 (Colo. 1937), 14244, Hallenbeck v. Butler
|Citation:||74 P.2d 708, 101 Colo. 486|
|Opinion Judge:||HOLLAND, Justice.|
|Party Name:||HALLENBECK et al. v. BUTLER.|
|Attorney:||Byron G. Rogers, Atty. Gen., Louis Schiff, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Harold Clark Thompson, of Denver, for plaintiffs in error. Smith, Brock, Akolt & Campbell and J. H. Shepherd, all of Denver, for defendant in error.|
|Judge Panel:||BURKE, C.J., and HILLIARD and BAKKE, JJ., concur.|
|Case Date:||December 13, 1937|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Colorado|
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; George F. Dunklee, Judge.
Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Irvin Butler, opposed by C. V. Hallenbeck, the State Compensation Insurance Fund, and the Industrial Commission of Colorado. An award of the Industrial Commission against claimant was reversed in district court, judgment entered for claimant, and defendants bring error.
[101 Colo. 487] Butler, the defendant in error, an employee of Hallenbeck, plaintiff in error, filed with the Industrial Commission a claim, which it now appears, is limited largely to payment of medical services for the treatment of his eyed rendered necessary, as it is alleged, by either an 'injury' to his eyes or an 'occupational disease' as may be determined under the Workmen's Compensation Act, '35 C.S.A., c. 97, §§ 280-429. Reference will be made to him herein as claimant, and since it will be unnecessary to refer to any of the plaintiffs in error, other than Hallenbeck and the Industrial Commission, the former will be mentioned by name and the latter as the commission.
The commission found against claimant, and upon his petition for review in the district court, it was ordered to vacate its award, and proceed to carry out a judgment entered in favor of claimant. This writ of error is prosecuted to review that judgment.
The claim as filed shows that 'approximately February 25, 1937,' while claimant was 'cleaning up grease and dirt in the shop, some of this grit flew in [his] right eye.' The employer's report and the evidence disclose that claimant was employed as shop foreman by Hallenbeck, a road contractor, and had been in his service about seven years. From this shop, a brick building with cement floors, supplies are sent out to contractors on jobs, and in it trucks and 'outfits' are repaired. Claimant acted as warehouseman and helper on the repair work. He cleaned off equipment preparatory to repairing and painting...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP