Colorado Springs Motors, Limited v. Industrial Commission, 22343
| Decision Date | 06 May 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 22343,22343 |
| Citation | 165 Colo. 504,441 P.2d 21 |
| Parties | COLORADO SPRINGS MOTORS, LTD., and Globe Indemnity Company, Plaintiffs in Error. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Colorado, and Francis T. Schutte, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Coit & Walberg, Denver, for plaintiffs in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Peter L. Dye, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendants in error.
This is a workmen's compensation case. It is here by writ of error to review the judgment of the District Court in and for the City and County of Denver affirming the findings and award of the Industrial Commission. The commission, pursuant to C.R.S.1963, 81--14--19, entered an order reopening the claim of defendant in error Francis T. Schutte upon the ground of 'a change in condition.'
It is conceded that the original injury to claimant's lower back was incurred in the course of his employment by Colorado Springs Motors, Ltd., on July 28, 1961. There is no issue as to the timeliness of the order reopening the case.
The single assignment of error is:
'That there is no evidence to support the Referee's findings that purport to relate the 1964 symptoms to the 1961 accident consequently the claim should not have been reopened.'
The referee found and the commission, upon review, 'approved, affirmed and adopted' the finding that 'Claimant's history, clinical observation and surgery clearly relate claimant's condition to his July 28, 1961 accident.'
The claimant and his surgeon both testified to facts which, if believed by the commission, were sufficient to support the finding. Neither the employer nor the insurance carrier introduced any evidence. The plaintiffs in error argue that the testimony of the claimant's medical expert is internally inconsistent, so, therefore, 'it is not logically possible * * * for the Referee to say, 'now I believe the doctor' and 'now I don't believe the doctor."
We will concede for the purposes of this discussion that plaintiffs in error are correct in their assessment of the doctor's testimony. However, it must be remembered that the commission is the fact finder in the process of decision making in workmen's compensation cases. It always devolves upon the finder of the fact to evaluate the evidence and to determine the credibility of witnesses. This process must be applied to the whole of the testimony of each witness and it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In the Matter of Claim of Schuster v. High Country Transportation
...the ALJ was free to rely on those portions she found persuasive and to reject other portions. See Colorado Springs Motors, Ltd. v. Industrial Commission, 165 Colo. 504, 441 P.2d 21 (1968). The ALJ's factual determinations are supported by substantial evidence in the vocational and medical e......
-
In the Matter of Claim of Yale v. Engineered Plastic Designs, W.C. No. 4-643-303 (CO 4/3/2006), W.C. No. 4-643-303.
...West v. Aranda (Colo. App. No. 92CA1576, July 1, 1993) (not selected for publication); see also Colorado Springs Motors, Ltd. v. Industrial Commission, 165 Colo. 504, 441 P.2d 21 (1968). The ALJ found that, at and near the time of his injury on February 3, 2005, the claimant did not complai......
-
In the Matter of Claim of Montoya v. Kaiser-Hill Company, LLC, W.C. No. 4-633-835 (CO 4/26/2006), W.C. No. 4-633-835
...failure to cite an expert's opinion inherently reflects that the ALJ did not find it persuasive. Colorado Springs Motors, Ltd. v. Industrial Commission, 165 Colo. 504, 441 P.2d 21 (1968); Magnetic Engineering, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 5 P.3d 385 (Colo. App. Contrary to the r......
-
In the Matter of Claim of Simonet v. Summit Hotel Management
...2002). In resolving inconsistencies the ALJ may credit all, part or none of an expert's testimony. Colorado Springs Motors, Ltd. v. Industrial Commission, 165 Colo. 504, 441 P.2d 21 (1968); Magnetic Engineering, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 5 P.3d 385 (Colo. App. Here, we disagr......