Industrial Com'n v. Valdez

• Decision Date: 13 December 1937
• Docket Number: 14234.
• Citation: 101 Colo. 482,74 P.2d 710
• Parties: INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. v. VALDEZ.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

74 P.2d 710

101 Colo. 482

INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. v. VALDEZ.

No. 14234.

Supreme Court of Colorado

December 13, 1937

In Department.

Error to District Court, Huerfano County; John L. East, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Timeo Valdez employee, opposed by the Huerfano County FERA, employer, and the State Compensation Fund, insurer. To review a judgment of the district court reversing an award of the Industrial Commission denying compensation, the Industrial Commission and others bring error.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

Byron G. Rogers, Atty. Gen., and Louis Schiff Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff in error Industrial Commission.

Harold Clark Thompson, of Denver, for plaintiff in error Compensation Fund.

Sam T Taylor, of Walsenburg, for defendant in error.

BURKE Chief Justice.

This is a workmen's compensation case. The parties here, in order, are hereinafter referred to as the commission, the fund, the employer, and claimant.

Claimant is afflicted with hernia which he contends is the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The commission found that he failed to establish that fact. The district court, holding otherwise, reversed the commission. To review that judgment plaintiffs prosecute this writ. Such is the sole question Before us.

'An employee in order to be entitled to compensation for hernia must clearly prove: first, that its appearance was accompanied by pain; second, that it was immediately preceded by some accidental strain suffered in the course of the employment.' Section 359, chapter 97, '35 C.S.A.

'Inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidence in workmen's compensation cases, are for the commission and not for the courts.' Comstock v. Bivens, 78 Colo. 107 (syllabus), 239 P. 869.

'In numerous cases we have said that the Workmen's Compensation Act, Laws 1919, p. 700 et seq., as amended, precludes courts from passing upon the evidence in such cases, and we have refused to change awards of the commission which were supported by the evidence, even though we, like the district court in this case, may have reached a conclusion differing from that of the fact-finding body. American Mining Co. v. Zupet, 101 Colo. 238, 72 P.2d 281, 282.

The commission found, inter alia: 'Claimant failed to establish that the hernia condition, from which he was suffering, was the result of any accidental injury.'

There was medical evidence to the effect that claimant had a 'potential hernia,' in other words, was so constituted that the affliction might be brought on by a very trifling circumstance. Thus is presented the kind of case at which the statute above quoted was especially aimed and which requires the utmost care, and often a very keen discrimination, on the part of the commission. Claimant alone testified that at the time alleged he slipped and immediately experienced a sharp pain on his right side. Other workmen near him were not called. One was called who testified that promptly thereafter claimant complained to him. Later in the day he reported to his foreman, but said nothing about slipping. The following day he consulted Dr. Noonan but failed to give him...