Martinez v. Industrial Commission
| Decision Date | 15 May 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72--311,72--311 |
| Parties | Arthur MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of the State of Colorado et al., Respondents. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Vernon P. Playton, Denver, for petitioner.
John P. Moore, Atty. Gen., John E. Bush, Deputy Atty. Gen., Peter L. Dye, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondent Industrial Commission of Colo.
Zarlengo, Mott & Carlin, Albert E. Zarlengo, Jr., Denver, for respondents Boise Cascade Corp. and Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co. of Wis.
Claimant, Arthur Martinez, sustained an injury in an industrial accident which resulted in an amputation of claimant's hand at the wrist. The insurer-respondent admitted liability for permanent partial disability consisting of loss of hand at the wrist. Claimant rejected the admission and alleged that in addition to the loss of the hand, he suffered permanent disability to his forearm for which he was entitled to compensation. The claim for additional compensation was ultimately denied by a final order of the Industrial Commission. We reverse.
At the hearing before a referee, claimant presented testimony of an orthopedic surgeon. The physician testified that claimant had a disability of 100% Measured at the wrist, and an additional 20% Disability of the arm measured at the elbow. He explained that the end result of the disarticulation of the hand was less than satisfactory, and that the claimant had a limitation of supination and pronation in the forearm. The referee found that the admission of liability was correct and awarded claimant the amount of scheduled compensation specified in C.R.S.1963, 81--12--4(1)(d), for 'loss of hand at the wrist.'
On petition for review of the referee's order, the Industrial Commission remanded the case to the feferee for findings of fact. The referee, after review of the file, found that the 'limitation of motion (in claimant's forearm) could either be caused by problems in the forearm, at the wrist, or at the elbow which occurred after the accident, but were not necessarily due to the accident.' The referee adopted his previous order, as supplemented by the additional findings. The Commission, on review, entered its supplemental order which approved, affirmed, and adopted the referee's supplemental order.
The issue presented by the petition for review is whether the evidence supports the findings and order of the Commission. We agree with claimant's contention that the Commission's findings are unsupported by the evidence and that its order is contrary to the evidence. The testimony of the claimant and of the physicians who examined and treated claimant establishes that claimant suffered a permanent disability in his forearm. In his order, the referee recognized the existence of this 'limitation of motion' but found that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City and County of Denver v. Industrial Commission
...the findings of the Commission where they are supported by competent evidence, as they are in this case. Martinez v. Industrial Commission, 32 Colo.App. 270, 511 P.2d 921. IV. Contrary to petitioner's contention the Commission, in making its findings, need not expressly refer to the precise......
-
Dziewior v. Michigan General Corp., 83CA0200
...only of other intervening factors, that finding is not supported by the record and must be reversed. See Martinez v. Industrial Commission, 32 Colo.App. 270, 511 P.2d 921 (1973). Upon remand the hearing officer must make the necessary factual determinations, holding such further hearings as......
-
Jones v. Adolph Coors Co., 83CA1043
...Coors." The record is devoid of any medical evidence to support this conclusion. Thus, it cannot stand. See Martinez v. Industrial Commission, 32 Colo.App. 270, 511 P.2d 921 (1973); Colorado Fuel and Iron Corp. v. Rhodes, 166 Colo. 82, 441 P.2d 652 The doctor specifically declined to assign......
-
City of Aurora v. Claimant in Matter of Death of Corr, 83CA0947
...Thus, since the Commission's order of reversal is not supported by the evidence, it cannot stand. See Martinez v. Industrial Commission, 32 Colo.App. 270, 511 P.2d 921 (1973); see also City & County of Denver School District No. 1 v. Industrial Commission, 196 Colo. 131, 581 P.2d 1162 The o......