Miceli v. State Compensation Ins. Fund, 21236
| Decision Date | 10 May 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 21236,21236 |
| Citation | 157 Colo. 204,401 P.2d 835 |
| Parties | Charles B. MICELI and the Industrial Commission of Colorado, Plaintiffs in Error, v. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Peter L. Dye, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Industrial Commission.
James W. Heyer, Denver, for Charles B. Miceli.
Francis L. Bury, Alious Rockett, Feay B. Smith, Jr., Denver, for defendant in error.
By writ of error, Miceli and the Industrial Commission, seek review of a district court order which reversed the findings and award of the Commission favoring Miceli, which arose out of a proceeding under C.R.S. '53, 81-1-1 et seq.
The sole question before the trial court and which is now here for our determination is whether Miceli was injured during the course of his employment or whether he suffered an occupational disease which is not covered by C.R.S. '53, 81-18-1 et seq. The Commission held he suffered from an accident and the trial court held to the contrary.
The record discloses that Miceli owned and operated a pizzeria wherein he, as the owner, made all of the pizza himself. He would roll the dough in flour on a table, knead it, toss it in the air, stretch it and pull it. In the course of this operation, considerable loose flour was stirred into the air, breathed by Miceli and covered his clothes, face, eyebrows and hair. After five years of such work at from 16 to 17 hours a day, he developed what his doctor diagnosed as pulmonary emphysema and mild pulmonary fibrosis. He filed a claim in 1962 asserting injury as an occupational disease.
In our view the trial court was correct in reversing the findings and award of the Commission favoring the claimant. In Industrial Commission v. Ula, 97 Colo. 253, 48 P.2d 803 (1935) we approved a definition of an occupational disease as one that is 'normally peculiar to and gradually caused by the occupation.' In C. F. & I. Corp. v. Ind. Commission et al., 154 Colo. ----, 392 P.2d 174 (1964), we approved a quotation defining an occupational disease as one 'contracted in the usual and ordinary course of events, which from the common experience of humanity is known to be incident to a particular employment.' Also, in the C. F. & I. case it was pointed out that an accident under the Workmen's Compensation Act is an occurrence traceable to a definite time, place...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Brinkhoff, 92SC271
...Disease Act, specific occupational diseases became compensable. Ch. 163, 1945 Colo.Sess.Laws 435. See Miceli v. State Compensation Ins. Fund, 157 Colo. 204, 206, 401 P.2d 835, 837 (1965). However, even for the listed, and therefore compensable, diseases the employer was not liable There [wa......
-
Martinez v. Industrial Commission, 77-970
...and cause . . . ." (citations omitted) See also § 8-41-108(1) and (3), C.R.S. 1973 (1976 Cum.Supp.); Miceli v. State Compensation Insurance Fund, 157 Colo. 204, 401 P.2d 835 (1965); and Industrial Commission v. La Foret Camps, 125 Colo. 503, 245 P.2d 459 Here, it was undisputed that claiman......
-
Boulder & White Rock Ditch & Reservoir Co. v. City of Boulder
... ... 6, Irrigation Division No. 1, in the State of Colorado. The City alleged former use of this ... water leaving .22 c/f/s of water for compensation as in the Anderson; and, ... (3) As to ... ...
-
City and County of Denver v. Moore, 72--082
...of the particular occupation. " Colorado Fuel & Iron Corp. v. Industrial Commission, supra. See Also Miceli v. State Compensation Insurance Fund, 157 Colo. 204, 401 P.2d 835. The city claims that, under the cited definitions, Moore's disability is the result of an occupational disease becau......