Ray v. Department of Labor and Industries, 24956.
| Decision Date | 12 June 1934 |
| Docket Number | 24956. |
| Parties | RAY v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Grays Harbor County; William E Campbell, Judge.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Nick Ray employee. From a judgment of the superior court reversing an order of the joint board which affirmed an order of the Department of Labor and Industries of the State of Washington closing the employee's claim, the Department appeals.
Affirmed.
G. W Hamilton and Browder Brown, both of Olympia, for appellant.
L. B. Donley, of Aberdeen, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court reversing an order of the Department of Labor and Industries closing the claim of Nick Ray.
February 13, 1933, Ray was injured in the region of the right hip, while engaged as a timber faller, which was an extrahazardous occupation. He presented a claim to the department, which was allowed, and he was paid time loss from February 19, 1933, to May 10, 1933, on which latter date the claim was closed. An appeal was taken to the joint board, and evidence was taken Before an examiner, which was transcribed and submitted to the board, which sustained the order of the department closing the claim. From the order of the joint board, the claimant appealed to the superior court, where the case was heard upon the record made by the department, including the testimony taken Before the examiner, and no other evidence was taken. The trial court reversed the order of the joint board, and the department appealed from that order.
There is but one question presented upon the appeal, and that is whether Ray's disability was due to the injury or a pre-existing arthritic condition, and this is purely a question of fact. The evidence shows that, at the time he sustained the injury, he had an arthritic condition which was dormant or latent, and that the injury caused this to become lighted up and made active. Since the injury, he has been unable to work, and whether he will sustain a permanent partial or a permanent total disability could not be determined at the time the evidence was taken, because the condition had not become fixed.
The judgment of the trial court was that the claimant was entitled to time loss until such time as it could be determined whether he sustained a permanent partial or a permanent total...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zavala v. Twin City Foods
...627 P.2d 104; Harbor Plywood Corp., 48 Wash.2d 553, 295 P.2d 310; Jacobson, 37 Wash.2d 444, 224 P.2d 338; Ray v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 177 Wash. 687, 688, 33 P.2d 375 (1934); Bryant v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 173 Wash. 240, 22 P.2d 667 (1933); Cantu v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 168 Wash.......
-
Zavala v. Twin City Foods
...627 P.2d 104; Harbor Plywood Corp., 48 Wash.2d 553, 295 P.2d 310; Jacobson, 37 Wash.2d 444, 224 P.2d 338; Ray v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 177 Wash. 687, 688, 33 P.2d 375 (1934) ; Bryant v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 173 Wash. 240, 22 P.2d 667 (1933) ; Cantu v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 168 Was......
-
Dennis v. Department of Labor and Industries of State of Wash.
...See, e.g., Harbor Plywood Corp. v. Department of Labor & Indus., 48 Wash.2d 553, 295 P.2d 310 (1956); Ray v. Department of Labor & Indus., 177 Wash. 687, 33 P.2d 375 (1934) (preexisting dormant arthritic condition lighted up and made active by injury). In Harbor Plywood Corp., this court he......
- Miller v. Department of Labor and Industries of Washington
-
Curing Washington's Occupational Disease Statute: Dennis v. Department of Labor and Industries
...338 (1950); Miller v. Department of Labor and Indus., 200 Wash. 674, 682-83, 94 P.2d 764 (1939); Ray v. Department of Labor and Indus., 177 Wash. 687, 33 P.2d 375 147. Id. at 472, 745 P.2d at 1298. 148. Id. 149. Id. at 474-76, 745 P.2d at 1299-1300. In ruling that occupational disease aggra......