Hunter v. Industrial Commission, 5537
| Decision Date | 26 November 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 5537,5537 |
| Citation | 73 Ariz. 84,237 P.2d 813 |
| Parties | HUNTER v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Eli Gorodezky, William C. Greatman, and Walter P. Boyd, all of Phoenix, for petitioner.
H. S. McCluskey, Phoenix (Robert E. Yount and Robert W. Pickrell, Phoenix, of counsel), for respondent Industrial Commission.
In December of 1950, petitioner, Pauline W. Hunter, was employed by the J. J. Newberry Co., in Phoenix, Arizona. On the morning of the 22nd of that month she reported for work as usual and proceeded to go about her duties as a saleslady in the children's toy department. In doing so, she was obliged to work in an aisle some 18 to 24 inches in width. Petitioner's testimony indicates that while stocking some of the counters, she attempted to place a box of toys on a lower shelf, located on the aisle and near the floor, and as she bent over, she twisted her back and felt a sharp pain in the vicinity of her lower spine. She mentioned the pain to two or three other employees, two of whom were her supervisors.
Upon medicial examination it was determined that the pain was the result of a protrusion or a ruptured disk of the spine, whereupon she was hospitalized and received treatment therefor. She applied to the Industrial Commission of Arizona for benefits based upon the injury. On January 10, 1951, the commission made its findings and award, denying petitioner benefits, the award being based on a finding that petitioner 'did not sustain a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment on December 22, 1950.' Additional findings indicate that the defendant employer was insured against liability for accident benefits and compensation by the commission and also that petitioner was subject to the provisions of The Arizona Workmen's Compensation Law. A.C.A.1939, § 56-901 et seq.
Petitioner timely filed application for rehearing with the commission and following the said rehearing, on May 14, 1951, the commission made its order affirming the previous findings and award. The cause now comes to us on certiorari.
It is undisputed that petitioner is now suffering a disability resulting from a back injury. The sole question presented here is whether or not the injury resulted from accident arising out of and in the course of her employment. Petitioner's testimony concerning the circumstances surrounding the injury is corroborated in many instances. While there was no one who...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baker v. Industrial Com'n
...in the dissenting opinion of CROCKETT, J. 1 For a case with facts very similar to the type and cause of injury, see Hunter v. Industrial Comm., 73 Ariz. 84, 237 P.2d 813, where it was held that claimant's indefinite testimony as to the actual cause of the injury did not defeat recovery.2 Sm......
-
Worthington v. Industrial Commission of Ariz., 6555
...was presented, we do not see how the Commission could find that Worthington was not employed by the Company. See Hunter v Industrial Commission, 73 Ariz. 84, 237 P.2d 813; Hobson v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 71 Ariz. 41, 223 P.2d 399; Matlock v. Industrial Commission, 70 Ariz. 25, 2......
-
May v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz., 1 CA-IC 13-0070
...medical evidence was not "in conformance with [Claimant's] testimony completely," thereby distinguishing Hunter v. Industrial Commission, 73 Ariz. 84, 85, 237 P.2d 813, 814 (1951) upon which Claimant relies.¶16 The ALJ was not asked to find that Dr. Shapiro's response to counsel's hypotheti......
-
Van Dyke v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co.
...no evidence in the record upon which the Commission could have based its finding, the award will be set aside, Hunter v. Industrial Commission, 73 Ariz. 84, 237 P.2d 813 (1951); Foley v. Industrial Commission, 73 Ariz. 82, 237 P.2d 812 (1951); Hobson v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 71 ......