Stinson v. Anderson Knife And Bar Co.
| Decision Date | 05 February 1932 |
| Docket Number | 14,511 |
| Citation | 179 N.E. 570,94 Ind.App. 70 |
| Parties | STINSON v. ANDERSON KNIFE AND BAR COMPANY |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From Industrial Board of Indiana.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by George Stinson against the Anderson Knife and Bar Company, employer. From an order denying compensation, the claimant appealed.
Affirmed.
Busby & Davisson, for appellant.
Bracken Gray & Defur, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an award of the full Industrial Board of Indiana, made and entered on September 18, 1931, denying compensation in a proceeding brought by appellant under the provisions of the Indiana Workmen's Compensation Act of 1915, as amended, in which appellant claimed compensation on account of personal injuries alleged to have been received while in the employ of appellee on or about March 15, 1929.
The primary question before the board was whether or not appellant received an injury by accident which arose out of and in the course of the employment.
The board made the following finding: "The Full Industrial Board having heard the argument of counsel and having reviewed the evidence and being thereby duly advised in the premises, finds: that the personal injury alleged in plaintiff's application for adjustment of compensation, filed herein on October 20, 1930, was not the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by the defendant, but was due to other causes, and the finding on said application should be for the defendant." (Our italics.)
The statute, § 9505 Burns 1926 (Acts 1915, as amended, Acts 1917 p. 154), as applicable, is as follows: " The full board . . . shall review the evidence, or, if deemed advisable, hear the parties at issue, their representatives and witnesses as soon as practicable, and shall make an award and file same with a finding of the facts on which it is based, and the rulings of law by the full board, if any," etc. (Our italics.)
There is sufficient competent evidence to sustain the finding of the board that "the personal injury . . . was not the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment." That is the fact found, and the only fact necessary to be found, if they found it to be a fact upon competent evidence. However, here the board goes further and adds these words "but was due to other causes." This phrase has no place in a finding of facts upon which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Uland v. Little
... ... v. Lilly, 1948, Ind.Sup., 79 N.E.2d 387; Pearson ... Company, Inc., v. McDermid, supra; Stinson v. Anderson ... Knife and Bar Company, 1932, 94 Ind.App. 70, 179 N.E ... 570; Lazarus v ... ...
-
Teter v. Mid-State Poultry & Egg Co.
...1948, Ind. 79 N.E.2d 387; Pearson Company, Inc., v. McDermid, [109 Ind.App. 228, 31 N.E.2d 642], supra; Stinson v. Anderson Knife and Bar Company, 1932, 94 Ind.App. 70, 179 N.E. 570; Lazarus v. Scherer, 1931, 92 Ind.App. 90, 174 N.E. 293; Standard Cabinet Co. v. Landgrave, 1920, 76 Ind.App.......
-
Sauer v. Tower Mfg. Co.
...to base an order denying compensation. See Brown v. American Tile & Pottery Co. (1932 Ind. App.) 178 N. E. 446;Stinson v. Anderson Knife & Bar Co. (1932 Ind. App.) 179 N. E. 570. Appellant argues that the evidence is not sufficient to support the order of the Industrial Board. It would serv......
-
Sauer v. Tower Manufacturing Co.
... ... See ... Brown v. American Tile and Pottery Co ... (1932), ante 344, 178 N.E. 446; Stinson v ... Anderson Knife Bar Co. (1932) ante 70, 179 ... N.E. 570 ... Appellant ... ...