Mantor v. Industrial Commission, 12788.

• Decision Date: 11 May 1931
• Docket Number: 12788.
• Citation: 89 Colo. 90,299 P. 11
• Parties: MANTOR v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

299 P. 11

89 Colo. 90

MANTOR v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 12788.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

May 11, 1931

Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Henley A Calvert, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Law by Charles Mantor opposed by the Stearns-Rogers Manufacturing Company employer, and the London Guarantee & Accident Company Limited, insurance carrier. The Industrial Commission awarded compensation, but subsequently denied claimant's petition to reopen the compensation award, and the district court upheld the commission's action, and claimant brings error.

Affirmed.

Harry C. Green, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.

Clarence L. Ireland, Atty. Gen., and Arthur L. Olson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error Industrial Commission.

Wm. E. Hutton and J. P. Nordlund, both of Denver, for defendants in error Stearns-Rogers Mfg. Co. and London Guarantee & Accident Co., Limited.

BUTLER J.

The Industrial Commission denied Charles Mantor's petition to reopen a compensation award. The district court upheld the action of the commission, and Mantor seeks a reversal of the judgment.

The Stearns-Rogers Manufacturing Company was the employer; London Guarantee & Accident Company, Limited, was the insurance carrier.

On May 27, 1925, Mantor was injured in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. In October, 1925, the matter was heard, and the referee found that there was a temporary partial disability, which would end November 19 1925, and that there was a permanent disability consisting of 10 per cent. loss of use of the left foot measured at the ankle. Payment of compensation was ordered on that basis. Upon review, the commission, on November 25, 1925, affirmed the award. No appeal therefrom was taken. On February 3, 1926, Mantor applied for a further hearing to determine his disability at that time. A hearing was had, and, at the referee's request, Dr. Struthers examined Mantor. The doctor reported that he believed that the pain complained of by Mantor was due to the extreme flattening of the foot, and that he considered Mantor as having 'a 10% permanent disability from this cause.' The referee, on March 25, 1926, found that Mantor had returned to work on January 20, 1926; and, construing the doctor's report to mean 10 per cent. disability as a working unit, found accordingly, and awarded compensation in the sum of $1,029.60, less compensation theretofore paid. Learning from the doctor that by his report he meant, not 10 per cent. disability as a working unit, but 10 per cent. loss of the use of the foot at the ankle, the referee, on April 5, 1926, without advance notice to Mantor, canceled the award of March 25, and ordered payment of a less compensation on the latter basis. On April 14, 1926, pursuant to notice to all the interested parties, an order was entered setting the case for further hearing 'to cross-examine Dr. Struthers, and such evidence as may be offered herein by either party.' Pursuant to the notice, Mantor and his attorney were present at the hearing. They made no objection thereto. His attorney cross-examined the doctor at length, and Mantor testified as to his condition. On June 22, 1926, upon notice to all the parties, there was another hearing. Pursuant to the notice, Mantor and his attorney were present. They made no objection to the hearing. Dr. Spicer, called by the referee, was examined by the referee and cross-examined by Mantor himself. Mantor testified as to his...