Andrews v. Industrial Com'n of Colorado
Decision Date | 04 June 1923 |
Docket Number | 10598. |
Citation | 73 Colo. 456,216 P. 256 |
Parties | ANDREWS v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF COLORADO et al. |
Court | Colorado 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.
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:
* * *'
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-
Central Surety & Ins. Corp. v. Industrial Com'n of Colorado
...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......