Breit v. Industrial Commission
| Decision Date | 27 June 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 21910,21910 |
| Parties | Peter BREIT, Plaintiff in Error, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Colorado, Borden's-Carlson Frink Company and Insurance Company of North America, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Marvin Dansky, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Yegge, Hall, Treece & Evans, James C. Perrill, Denver, for Borden's-Carlson Frink Co. and Insurance Co. of North America.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Peter L. Dye, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error Industrial Commission of Colorado.
This is a Workmen's Compensation case. The claimant, Peter Breit, applied for compensation for a back injury which allegedly resulted from two accidents while he was working within the scope of his employment as a delivery route salesman for the Borden's-Carlson Frink Company. The Industrial Commission affirmed the denial of his claim by its referee and the district court affirmed the Commission's ruling. Breit seeks a reversal in this court by writ of error.
Three grounds of error are assigned. These may be consolidated into two basic allegations, viz.:
(1) That the order denying compensation was not supported by the evidence; and,
(2) That the order was defective as it failed to make the required findings of fact.
There is no dispute that the claimant suffered a back injury. The conflict centers around the question as to whether the evidence showed that the injury resulted from two accidents which were alleged to have occurred while Breit was performing his duties for his employer.
The record discloses that Breit commenced his employment on November 25, 1963. Some two days prior to this time, he underwent a physical examination which failed to indicate any pre-existing back condition. The claimant testified that thereafter, on November 27th, the first injury occurred while he was loading milk on his refrigerated truck subsequent to his having completed servicing the customers on his daily route. He was being assisted by a training supervisor by the name of Darwin Villhauer. The truck had been backed up to the loading dock where a ramp leading to the rear of the truck was dropped into place. Breit testified that Villhauer was in the back of the vehicle receiving the milk that the claimant was handing to him and that suddently, the milk truck rolled forward, causing the ramp to fall. Breit asserted that this caused him to lose his balance, and as a result he sustained a back injury. He next asserted that Villhauer asked whether he was all right, to which the claimant replied, 'Yeah, I guess so.' The record further indicates that Breit testified that he suffered a 'consistent little pain' in his back from this episode.
The second claimed accident occurred the following Tuesday, on December 3rd, while Breit was working his route. He testified that he 'misstepped running off the step' of the sidewalk and this, in turn, aggravated the condition from the first incident. He claimed that he reported the incident to his supervisor, James E. Sexsmith, who was on a routine check with him. Sexsmith allegedly told him to 'see your own doctor.'
Two days later, before he was able to see a physician, Breit received an emergency call to return to his home in Kansas to visit his sister who was critically ill. Thereafter, upon his return to Colorado, he was hospitalized for his condition, but was subsequently dismissed involuntarily when it appeared that the claim would be contested.
The remainder of Breit's evidence consisted of three witnesses who corroborated the fact that he appeared to have been suffering from a back injury after December 3rd. In addition, he had told two of these persons that the injury had occurred while he was employed at Borden's. These was also medical evidence which supported the existence of the alleged injury which Breit's doctors stated could have occurred in the manner as related by the claimant.
Conversely, the respondents introduced evidence which conflicted with the claimant's case on the crucial issues. It may be summarized as follows:
Concerning the date of November 27th, Villhauer stated that a 'ramp-falling' incident did occur, but not at the time nor in the manner as explained by the claimant. Villhauer testified that he was in the process of backing the truck, while Breit stood on the dock directing the maneuver. His version was that the ramp was put into place; the truck then rolled forward causing it to drop; and that when Villhauer checked, Breit was still on the dock. This witness specifically denied that there was any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Metals Climax, Inc. v. Cisneros
... ... Insurance Fund, Petitioners, ... Tony E. CISNEROS and Industrial Commission of Colorado, Respondents ... No. C-1353 ... Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc ... Breit v. [195 Colo. 168] Industrial Commission, 160 Colo. 205, 415 P.2d 858 (1966); Denver Symphony ... ...
-
Casa Bonita Restaurant v. Industrial Commission of Colorado
... ... We disagree ... Petitioners insist that the referee's findings and conclusions in this case are adequately supported by the evidence and, therefore, that they may not be overturned by the Industrial Commission. In support of this contention they cite Breit v. Industrial Commission, 160 Colo. 205, 415 P.2d 858 (1966) ... Petitioners misread Breit. In Breit the Commission adopted, rather than reversed, the referee's findings. Thus, Breit, insofar as is germane here, stands only for the proposition that where the referee's findings ... ...
-
Denver Symphony Ass'n v. Industrial Commission
... ... The employer's argument that the burden of establishing eligibility for compensation was improperly placed on it is not well founded. There can be no doubt that, initially, the burden of proof is on the employee in a proceeding of this type. Breit v. Industrial Commission, 160 Colo. 205, 415 P.2d 858; 81 C.J.S. Social Security and Public Welfare § 219. However, once the commission has accepted a claimant's statement in support of his claim for compensation, claimant has met the burden and has established a Prima facie case on the pertinent ... ...
-
Industrial Commission v. Bysom
... ... Breit v. Industrial Commission, 160 Colo. 205, 415 P.2d 858 ... The trial court erred when it reversed the order of the Commission which had found the second heart attack was not compensable ... That part of the trial court's judgment reversing the Commission's order on ... ...