Andrews v. Industrial Com'n of Colorado

Decision Date04 June 1923
Docket Number10598.
Citation73 Colo. 456,216 P. 256
PartiesANDREWS v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF COLORADO et al.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Department 1.

Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Julian H Moore, Judge.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Elmer Backman, to recover compensation for personal injuries, opposed by James H. Andrews, employer. An award of compensation by the Industrial Commission was affirmed by the district court, and the employer brings error.

Affirmed.

M. H Kennedy, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.

Russell W. Fleming, Atty. Gen., and Joseph P. O'Connell, Asst Atty. Gen., for defendants in error.

BURKE, J.

In an adjudication before the Industrial Commission the claim of Elmer Backman against James H. Andrews (hereinafter referred to as defendant) was allowed, and the district court affirmed the award. The material portion of the Commission's findings and award reads as follows:

'That the claimant, Elmer Backman, sustained an accidental injury on the 14th day of February, 1922, while in the employ of the respondent, James H. Andrews. * * * That the injury so sustained by the claimant was caused by a jar or bruise on the right hand while engaged in excavating work and digging in frozen ground. That the bruise occasioned thereby became infected, and as a result of such accidental injury it became necessary to amputate claimant's index finger. * * *'

It is here contended that the Commission in making such findings and award acted without and in excess of its powers, and that the findings do not support the award, for the reason that the uncontroverted evidence shows that the injury was not the proximate result of an accident arising out of and in the course of Backman's employment, but was due to claimant's willful violation of the rules of his employer, and neglect to avail himself of medical treatment. The findings of fact so clearly support the award, and are within the powers of the Commission, if there be any evidence in support of them, that their discussion from any other standpoint is superfluous.

There are conflicts in this evidence. Even Backman's testimony is distinguished by uncertainty and inconsistency; but these things are insufficient to justify a reversal. It is said that----

'His irresponsible answers and his evasiveness brands his claim as an imposition upon the respondent and the Industrial Commission.'

Possibly so; but the truth thereof was for the Commission, not the court.

It is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Central Surety & Ins. Corp. v. Industrial Com'n of Colorado
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • October 22, 1928
    ...out of the employment, and would not have occurred, save for such employment, the overexertion was an accident. In Andrews v. Industrial Commission, 73 Colo. 456, 216 P. 256, workman, while digging in frozen ground, bruised his hand. The bruise became infected, and it became necessary to am......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT