Maxwell v. Hart
Decision Date | 11 March 1935 |
Docket Number | Civil 3528 |
Citation | 45 Ariz. 198,41 P.2d 1089 |
Parties | H. W. MAXWELL, Petitioner, v. W. L. HART, Defendant Employer, and THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Defendant Insurance Carrier, Respondents |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL by Certiorari from an award of the Industrial Commission of Arizona. Award vacated.
Mr William C. Fields, for Petitioner.
Mr. Don C. Babbitt (Mr. Emil Wachtel on the Brief), for Respondent Industrial Commission.
This is a proceeding by certiorari to review the action of the Industrial Commission in refusing compensation to petitioner for injuries he claims to have sustained as a pumpman and blacksmith while in the employ of W. L. Hart in the latter's mining operations in the Harquahala mine near Salome, Arizona.
The sole ground set out in the petition for review of the proceedings of the commission is that the decision is contrary to, and is not supported by, the evidence. It is undisputed that on March 1, 1934, the petitioner, while in the performance of the work assigned to him and because the rungs of a ladder on which he was standing broke, fell and slipped some eight feet upon or against a pump that he was repairing, and in the fall was injured in his right groin and his back wrenched. He was examined on the 5th day of March by Dr. H. D. Ketcherside, of Phoenix, who reported that he was suffering from a right inguinal hernia which needed to be operated upon.
The Industrial Commission's regular physician, Dr. R. F Palmer, after examining petitioner on March 26, 1934, made the following report on March 27th:
X-ray pictures showed that the fourth and fifth lumbar vertebrae were affected by rather extensive old arthritis and some hypertrophic changes throughout the entire lumbar area, but that these conditions were not as recent as March 1st.
Petitioner immediately on coming out of the mine, made known to the foreman and others of the miners his accident and injury, and complained of pain in his back and burning pain in his right...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Eagle Indem. Co. v. Hadley
...by the injury. For example see Hunter v. Wm. Peper Construction Co., 46 Ariz. 465, 52 P.2d 472, involving arthritis; Maxwell v. Hart, 45 Ariz. 198, 41 P.2d 1089, involving a rupture and back injury; Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Commission, 38 Ariz. 307, 299 P. 1026, invol......
-
Aluminum Co. of America v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
... ... decisions are entirely in accord with this view. Hartford ... Acc. etc. Co. v. Industrial Comm., 38 Ariz ... 307, 299 P. 1026; Maxwell v. Hart, 45 Ariz ... 198, 41 P.2d 1089; Hunter v. Wm. Peper Const ... Co., 46 Ariz. 465, 52 P.2d 472; Paramount ... Pictures v. Industrial ... ...
-
Paramount Pictures, Inc. v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
... ... compensation for such aggravation. Tucson Rapid Transit ... Co. v. Rubaiz, 21 Ariz. 221, 187 P. 568; ... Maxwell v. Hart, 45 Ariz. 198, 41 P.2d ... The ... award is affirmed so far as it covers amounts expended by ... petitioner for medical ... ...
-
Pace v. Industrial Commission, 5400
...assignment of error. The commission, in addition, urges that the Williams decision in effect overrules the prior case of Maxwell v. Hart, 45 Ariz. 198, 41 P.2d 1089, which it claims should be controlling in the instant As a basis for denying petitioner benefits, the commission apparently pl......