Indianhead Truck Lines, Inc. v. Industrial Commission

• Decision Date: 30 October 1962
• Citation: 17 Wis.2d 562,117 N.W.2d 679
• Parties: INDIANHEAD TRUCK LINES, INC., et al., Appellants, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION and Walter R. Conley, et al., Respondents.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Page 679

117 N.W.2d 679

17 Wis.2d 562

INDIANHEAD TRUCK LINES, INC., et al., Appellants, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION and Walter R. Conley, et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oct. 30, 1962.

Schlotthauer, Jenswold & Reed, Madison, Robert R. Studt, Madison, of counsel, for appellants.

James G. Sisolak, Milwaukee, for Walter R. Conley.

John W. Reynolds, Atty. Gen. and Beatrice Lampert, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, for Industrial Commission.

Wickham, Borgelt, Skogstad & Powell, Milwaukee, Clayton R. Hahn, Milwaukee, of counsel, for Ins. Co.

GORDON, Justice.

The employee, Walter Conley, had a record of previous back difficulty. He first had complaints in 1954 and saw a doctor at that time. Back pain caused him to be away from work four or five days in 1957, and two years later he had additional back trouble and was obliged to obtain a lumbosacral belt.

With that history the question is raised on this appeal whether the episode of January 8, 1960, constituted an industrial accident which caused Conley's disability. This is primarily a fact question and when resolved by the commission our duty on review is to determine whether there is credible evidence to support it.

If credible evidence exists in support of the commission's findings, such findings are conclusive. Sec. 102.23(1), Stats. Schuh v. Industrial Comm. (1958), 2 Wis.2d 611, 614, 87 N.W.2d 256. As Mr. Justice Hallows put it in Unruh v. Industrial Comm. (1959), 8 Wis.2d 394, 398, 99 N.W.2d 182, 184:

'The question is not whether there is credible evidence in the record to sustain a finding the commission didn't make, but whether there is credible evidence to sustain the finding the commission did make.'

In Borden Co. v. Industrial Comm. (1958), 2 Wis.2d 619, 622, 87 N.W.2d 261, 263, this court said:

'That testimony might have justified a contrary finding but it is the function of the Industrial Commission and the examiners to evaluate medical testimony and determine its weight, and their findings on disputed medical testimony are conclusive. Giant Grip Mfg. Co. v. Industrial Comm., 271 Wis. 583, 74 N.W.2d 182.'

Also, in Glodowski v. Industrial Comm. (1960), 11 Wis.2d 525, 530, 105 N.W.2d 833, 837 we quoted the following from Hills Dry Goods Co. v. Industrial Comm. (1935) 217 Wis. 76, 85, 258 N.W. 336:

'If the commission finds against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence or if it finds upon a given state of the evidence one way in one case and another way in another case, there being the requisite minimum evidence in each case, the matter is beyond the jurisdiction of this court.'

In Fitz v. Industrial Comm. (1960), 10 Wis.2d 202, 205, 102 N.W.2d 93, 95, we stated:

'The causal relationship between an injury and the disability presents a fact question for the commission.'

The following finding by the commission is challenged on this appeal: That Conley 'made a quick grab for an unloading hose, which slipped from his grasp; that such incident precipitated increased back symptoms; that applicant thereby sustained injury while performing service and in the course of his employment * * *.'

When we turn to the record we find that there is credible evidence to sustain this finding. Mr. Conley described the event as a 'quick action' in which he bent over to recover a hose. He testified at the hearing that he noticed a 'stretch or snap in the back.' On another occasion he testified that his movement 'was a quick but limited action.' He said that he 'lurched sideways to the right and grabbed the hose.' One of the doctors used the word 'lunge', but the applicant disavowed the term. We are satisfied that upon this record the commission could properly resolve that the applicant...