London Guarantee & Acc. Co. v. Industrial Com'n

• Decision Date: 05 July 1921
• Docket Number: 10038.
• Citation: 199 P. 962,70 Colo. 256
• Parties: LONDON GUARANTEE & ACCIDENT CO., Limited, et al. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

199 P. 962

70 Colo. 256

LONDON GUARANTEE & ACCIDENT CO., Limited, et al. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 10038.

Supreme Court of Colorado

July 5, 1921

Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Julian H Moore, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Laws 1919, c. 210) for compensation for injuries by T. G. Platt, the employee opposed by the Colorado Springs Light, Heat & Power Company a corporation, the employer, and the London Guarantee &amp Accident Company, Limited, a corporation, the insurer. Compensation was awarded by the Industrial Commission, such award being affirmed by the district court on application to set aside by the employer and insurer, and they bring error.

Affirmed.

B. B. McCay and Wm. E. Hutton, both of Denver, for plaintiffs in error.

Victor E. Keyes, Atty. Gen., and John S. Fine, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants in error.

WHITFORD, J.

In this case it is sought to set aside a finding and award of the Industrial Commission. The Commission made this finding:

'That it has been established as a result of the accident described in the agreement above referred to, and in which it is stated that the claimant ruptured the canal of his bladder; that the claimant has sustained a permanent partial disability equal to 10 per cent. of permanent total disability; that said disability arises from the nervous shock sustained by the claimant as a result of the injuries described in the agreement above referred to, and its consequent effect upon his bodily health; that it has been established as a result of the accident above described, the claimant has sustained for all practical purposes a total loss of sexual power.'

It is urged that there is no finding by the Commission which supports the award, because there is no finding of an impairment of earning capacity. This objection cannot be sustained. The accident occurred December 27, 1917. More than a month after the accident plaintiff in error agreed in writing, and the agreement was approved by the Commission, to pay $8 per week during the continuance of disability. Payments were made in virtue of this agreement for 6 weeks, after which a final hearing was had on December 23, 1919, for the sole purpose of determining the extent of the disability, if any, of the claimant. The Commission thereupon found the extent of claimant's disabilities to be 'permanent partial disability equal to 10 per cent. of permanent total disability.' We think this finding of the Commission is sufficient to sustain the award. We have carefully examined the evidence, although not required by statute to do so, and the findings of the Commission are sustained by sufficient competent evidence.

It appears from the record that the injury was inflicted by falling astride of a stay, rupturing the urethra and causing a loss of a part of the scrotum. The physician testified:

'The tissues were badly lacerated, and the urethra was not only torn in one, but two or three, places, and portions of the urethra entirely destroyed; * * * had considerable gangrene of the scrotum; * * * that the question was whether he was going to live; whether he would not die from the poisoning; whether he would not have degeneration of the testicles, or a running sore, as a result of the injury.'

The evidence was that, when he returned to work, he was nervous and irritable and weak physically; that he suffered from a general sense of tiredness or lassitude; that he was impotent; that there was lack of 'pep'; that he was inactive physically; that prior to the injury he was a man of unusual physical strength and power of endurance; that after the accident and at the time of the final hearing, there was a marked loss of vitality and a lack of ability to carry on protracted physical exertion, without periods of rest during working hours; that he is not the man he was two years ago. With this evidence before it, the Commission could very properly find a loss of 10 per cent. of efficiency.

It is further claimed that the evidence shows that the claimant was making more at the time of...