Birchett v. Tuf-Nut Garment Manufacturing Co.
Decision Date | 08 March 1943 |
Docket Number | 4-7014 |
Citation | 169 S.W.2d 574,205 Ark. 483 |
Parties | BIRCHETT v. TUF-NUT GARMENT MANUFACTURING COMPANY |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division; Lawrence C Auten, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Gene Rhodes and Joseph Brooks, for appellant.
Donham Fulk & Mehaffy and E. W. Moorhead, for appellee.
OPINION
Zelma Birchett filed a claim with the Workmen's Compensation Commission against her employer, Tuf-Nut Garment Manufacturing Company, and against Globe Indemnity Company, its insurance carrier, seeking an award of compensation for an injury which she alleged arose out of and in the course of her employment. The Commission, after a hearing, found "That the claimant, Zelma Birchett, did not receive an accidental injury that arose out of the employment with her employer," and denied her claim.
Zelma Birchett appealed from this award to the circuit court of Pulaski county, and the Commission certified to the court all documents and papers on file before it in the matter, together with the transcript of evidence and its findings and award. The statute, § 25 (b) of Act 319 of 1939, provides that these papers shall become the record of the cause in the circuit court, that no additional evidence should be heard, and that, in the absence of fraud, the findings of fact made by the Commission, within its powers, shall be conclusive and binding.
The circuit court sustained the award of the Commission and dismissed the appeal. The claimant excepted to this judgment and prayed and was granted an appeal to this court.
Section 25 (b) of Act 319 of 1939 directs that the circuit court, on such appeal, "shall review only questions of law and may modify, reverse, remand for rehearing, or set aside the award upon any of the following grounds and no other:
"Appeal from the circuit court shall be allowed the same as in civil actions . . ."
The Commission's report, in full, is as follows:
There is no dispute about the facts. The sole question is whether, as a matter of law, the facts found by the Commission do or do not support its award--that is whether as a matter of law the facts sustain the Commission's conclusion that claimant is not entitled to compensation.
The question here presented is a new one in this state. Decisions from other jurisdictions, while persuasive, are not conclusive.
Claimant's injuries arose out of a personal difficulty which she...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wren v. D. F. Jones Construction Company
... ... Summerville, 205 Ark. 463, 169 ... S.W.2d 579; Williams Manufacturing Co. v ... Walker, 206 Ark. 392, 175 S.W.2d 380; Mack Coal ... Co ... As ... the late Justice Carter said in the case of Birchett ... v. Tuf-Nut Garment Manufacturing Company, 205 Ark ... 483, 169 ... ...
-
In re Dillon
...& Indemnity Co. v. Cardillo, 72 App.D.C. 52, 112 F.2d 11. Among cases tending in the opposite direction are Birchett v. Tuf-Nut Garment Mfg. Co., 205 Ark. 483, 169 S.W.2d 574;Armour & Co. v. Industrial Commission, 397 Ill. 433, 74 N.E.2d 704;Romerez v. Swift & Co., 106 Kan. 844, 189 P. 923;......
-
Wren v. D. F. Jones Const. Co.
...dangerous, but essentially necessary, work of the world. As the late Justice Carter said in the case of Birchett v. Tuf-Nut Garment Manufacturing Co., 205 Ark. 483, 169 S.W.2d 574, 577: "the theory behind the Workmen's Compensation Act is this: Every industry exposes those engaged in it to ......
-
Johnson v. Safreed
...no work-connected dispute was involved in that case. This was also the theory involved in the decision in Birchett v. Tuf-Nut Garment Mfg. Co., 205 Ark. 483, 169 S.W.2d 574, 577, where the majority made the following noteworthy observation: 'It might be that working with, or next to, some q......