Matela v. Department of Labor and Industries, 24337.

• Decision Date: 15 August 1933
• Docket Number: 24337.
• Citation: 174 Wash. 144,24 P.2d 429
• Parties: MATELA v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

24 P.2d 429

174 Wash. 144

MATELA v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES.

No. 24337.

Supreme Court of Washington

August 15, 1933

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Lewis County; W. A. Reynolds, Judge.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Jack Matela against the Department of Labor and Industries. From a judgment reversing an order of the Department of Labor and Industries, the Department appeals.

Affirmed.

G. W Hamilton, Browder Brown, and V. D. Bradeson, all of Olympia for appellant.

John S Lynch, of Olympia, for respondent.

MAIN Justice.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the superior court reversing an order of the Department of Labor and Industries in closing the claim of Jack Matela.

September 30, 1930, Matela, while engaged in an extrahazardous occupation and in the course of his employment, sustained a fracture of a part of the fifth vertebra and a traumatic injury to the spine in the fifth lumbar region. Thereafter he presented a claim to the department, and was allowed compensation for time lost and furnished medical attention until January 12, 1932, when his claim was closed without the payment of any permanent partial disability award. Matela petitioned for a hearing Before the joint beard, which was granted. The joint board held two hearings at which testimony was taken, and at each of the hearings a doctor was called as a witness. This case must turn largely upon the testimony of these two doctors.

The department takes the position that Matela's condition, at the time the claim was closed, was due to arthritis, and not due to the injury which he had sustained. The testimony of the two doctors establishes that Matela, at the time his claim was closed and at the time of the hearings Before the joint board, was not able to engage in any gainful occupation; that his condition was improving; that he needed further treatment; and that the time had not yet arrived when it could be determined whether he would completely recover or would sustain a partial permanent disability.

One of the doctors testified, unequivocally, that his condition was due to the injury and was not the result of arthritis. This doctor was in an especially advantageous position to speak because shortly after the injury he treated and prescribed for Matela for approximately two months, and was conversant with his condition at the time of the hearings. The other doctor's...