Industrial Com'n v. Colorado Fuel & Iron Corp.

Decision Date29 April 1957
Docket NumberNo. 18201,18201
Citation310 P.2d 717,135 Colo. 307
PartiesINDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Colorado, and John Ferencik, Plaintiffs in Error, v. COLORADO FUEL AND IRON CORPORATION, a Colorado Corporation, Defendant in Error.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Peter L. Dye, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff in error Industrial Commission.

Graham & Scheunemann, Denver, for plaintiff in error John Ferencik.

C. H. Groves, Thomas B. Robinson, Tippit, Haskell & Welborn, Elmer P. Cogburn, Denver, for defendant in error.

KNAUSS Justice.

This is a workmen's compensation case in which claimant, John J. Ferencik, was awarded compensation for permanent total disability, resulting from injuries sustained while employed by The Colorado Fuel & Iron Corporation. The district court reversed this award of the Industrial Commission. The commission and claimant seek reversal contending that under the record claimant is entitled to an award for total permanent disability.

Claimant had been employed by The Colorado Fuel & Iron Corporation for many years. On March 14, 1955 while engaged in cutting down an ash hopper with a blow torch on an I beam some eighteen feet above the ground level, claimant became ill, sat down on the I beam and toppled to the ground into a pile of metal, some of which was hot. He suffered a paralysis of his left side, together with burns on his right hand, and contusions. That claimant is permanently disabled is not disputed.

The referee of the commission made his first findings and award on October 6, 1955 and determined 'from the medical evidence that a cerebral thrombosis of the left brain was the cause of claimant's fall and of his permanent disability, which now completely disables him, and that respondents are not liable for the effects of this systemic condition of unknown origin. However, respondents are liable for the damage caused by claimant having fallen eighteen feet to the debris below, and for the electric burns which, following the thrombosis in point of time, constitutes an aggravation of a pre-existing condition, which together, result in permanent total disability, making respondent liable for compensation to claimant for the remainder of his life'.

This report and findings had the approval of the commission and on petition for review 'was affirmed and approved as Final Award of this Commission.'

The cause was taken to the district court and on March 1, 1956 that court remanded the case to 'the Referee for the taking of further evidence to determine the nature and extent of the disability and the percentage of disability sustained by claimant by reason of natural causes, and what additional disability, if any there be, is attributable to the accident, and further for the amendment of the Referee's Findings predicated upon the additional evidence.'

Additional evidence was taken and on April 25, 1956 the referee made his supplemental findings and order pursuant to the court order. These findings repeated the original report that the thrombosis was not associated with claimant's employment, 'therefore the effects of which are not compensable. However, the permanent partial disability resulting from the fall is compensable because of the increasing peril in which his employment placed him. The Referee finds that claimant did suffer some degree of permanent partial disability from the fall and while the exact amount is not too important, the Referee finds it to be 15% as a working unit. This disability, superimposed on claimant's pre-existing infirmity, has resulted in permanent total disability for which respondent employer is liable.'

The commission having reviewed the report and findings of the referee on October 2, 1956 made its award declaring that while 'the degree of disability resulting from the fall and the burns is immaterial, it is in fact 15% as a working unit which, superimposed on claimant's pre-existing infirmity, has rendered him permanently and totally disabled.' This award was adhered to on petition for review filed by employer.

The cause was again taken to the district court where on review that court set it aside and stated 'the award of the Commission is contrary to the evidence', hence void and of no effect.

Here, we do not have an unexplained cause for claimant's fall. We have no evidence of a skull fracture, and claimant did not suffer any bone or spinal injury. No physician tesified that the burns caused the paralysis. There is no evidence that the fall was caused by any condition of the employment or by overwork or overexertion in the performance of the work, and the express findings of the referee and the commission determine that the fall was occasioned by the thrombosis.

It is no longer open to question in this state that an award of the commission is conclusive upon all matters of fact properly in dispute when supported by evidence or the reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom. Vanadium Corporation of America v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Industrial Com'n of Colorado v. Jones, 83SC119
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • September 24, 1984
    ...and draw reasonable inferences from this evidence. E.g., Havens, 136 Colo. at 120, 314 P.2d at 703; Industrial Commission v. CF&I, 135 Colo. 307, 312, 310 P.2d 717, 720 (1957). To be sure, the factual issues underlying the claimant's petition to reopen are close, and the referee could have ......
  • Colorado Fuel & Iron Corp. v. Industrial Commission
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • November 5, 1962
    ...Commission, 106 Colo. 430, 105 P.2d 1087; National Fuel Co. v. Arnold, 121 Colo. 220, 214 P.2d 784; Industrial Commission v. Colorado Fuel & Iron, 135 Colo. 307, 310 P.2d 717. In the last case referred to, the court quoted the doctrine which prevails in this state in this "In determining th......
  • Tri-State Ins. Co. v. Industrial Commission
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • February 25, 1963
    ...nevertheless it is the commission and not the experts that must make this determination. This court said in Industrial Commission v. Colorado Fuel & Iron, 135 Colo. 307, 310 P.2d 717, quoting with approval from Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Industrial Commission, 105 Colo. 22, 94 P.2d 'The commi......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT