Tafoya v. Kermac Nuclear Fuels, Corp.
| Decision Date | 27 November 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 6981,6981 |
| Parties | Samuel TAFOYA, Sr., Claimant-Appellant, v. KERMAC NUCLEAR FUELS, CORP., Employer, and Mountain States Mutual Casualty Co., Insurer, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Ramon Lopez, Smith, Kiker & Kitts, Richard E. Ransom, Albuquerque, for appellant.
Modrall, Seymour, Sperling, Roehl & Harris, Frank H. Allen, Jr., Albuquerque, for appellees.
The plaintiff Samuel Tafoya, Sr., filed a workmen's compensation claim against Kermac Nuclear Fuels, Corp., his employer, and Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company, the employer's insurer in an attempt to recover compensation on account of injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff as a result of an accident which occurred on December 14th, 1959. After hearing the evidence and the arguments of counsel, the trial court decided in favor of the defendant and dismissed plaintiff's complaint.
The plaintiff appeals to this court and assigns as error the trial court's adoption of its finding of fact numbered seven and eight to the effect that an accident sustained by the plaintiff in 1957 resulted in a lumbo-sacral disc injury and a degenerated disc disease, on the ground that such findings are not supported by substantial evidence, and the trial court's adoption of finding of fact number 19 and its conclusion of law number 5 to the effect that the plaintiff failed to establish by the proof in the case that he sustained a compensable injury as a result of the accident of December 14, 1959.
Six doctors testified on the trial of this cause, three having been called by the plaintiff and three by the defendant. We have carefully read and examined the entirety of the testimony of all six medical experts. It is clear to the court from an examination of this testimony that the trial court's findings numbered 7 and 8 are supported by substantial evidence and that the trial court was within its proper right and prerogative in finding that the plaintiff suffered a degenerated disc as a result of an industrial accident which he sustained in 1957 and entirely independently of the accident which occurred in 1959. It is true that the testimony of the medical expert witnesses is quite contradictory and that the court could well have found to the contrary. It is not, of course, for the appellate court to say that the trial court should have reached a decision contrary to that actually reached when the judgment of the trial court in the particular under examination is supported by substantial evidence. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Jolly, 67 N.M. 101, 352 P.2d 1013; Luna v. Flores, 64 N.M. 312, 328 P.2d 82; Los Alamos Medical Center v. Coe, 58 N.M. 686, 275 P.2d 175, 50 A.L.R.2d 1033; Pentecost v. Husdon, 57 N.M. 7, 252 P.2d 511.
To illustrate the substantial nature of the evidence which supports the trial court's findings of fact, attention is called to the testimony of Doctor Connell, one of defendant's witnesses. He testified on direct examination as follows:
'We thought he probably had degenerative disc disease in four and five along with osteoarthritis.
* * *
* * *
'Q Now, doctor, with a comparison of these X-Rays that you took in January, 1960, and the X-Rays you took in the Summer of 1959, did you see any change which would result from the injury complained of on December 14th?
'A No, I didn't see no change in the film at all.
'Q They were the same before the injury and the same after?
'A Yes, sir, they are comparable.'
Doctor Ritter, another witness called by the defendant, testified as follows:
'Q Well, for full time work, doing heavy work, what per cent of disability would you estimate him to have in June and July of 1959?
'A Easily 15 or 20 per cent.
'Q And what percent of disability would you say he had in January 1960?
'A Same thing.
'Q Same thing?
'A Yes.
'Q And in February of 1960?
'A Approximately...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. Barber's Super Markets, Inc.
...requested findings. Renehan v. Lobato, 55 N.M. 532, 237 P.2d 100; Gladin v. Compton, 72 N.M. 175, 381 P.2d 961; Tafoya v. Kermac Nuclear Fuels Corp., 71 N.M. 157, 376 P.2d 576. A careful review of the record convinces us that the trial court's findings have substantial support in the eviden......
-
Sena v. Continental Cas. Co.
...under the New Mexico Workmen's Compensation Act is a matter of law to be decided by the court from the facts. Tafoya v. Kermac Nuclear Fuels Corp., 71 N.M. 157, 376 P.2d 576 (1962); Burton v. Crawford and Company, 89 N.M. 436, 553 P.2d 716 (Ct.App.1976). The defendants challenge the judgmen......
-
1999 -NMCA- 20, Yeager v. St. Vincent Hosp.
...burden of providing the medical evidence necessary to prove that she had a compensable claim, see Tafoya v. Kermac Nuclear Fuels, Corp., 71 N.M. 157, 160, 376 P.2d 576, 578 (1962), when she failed to provide a lung specialist's assignment of an impairment rating. Compare § 52-1-24(A) (expli......
-
Sentry Ins. Co. v. Gallegos
...court. Our duty is to find out if the conclusions of the court are supported by substantial evidence. Tafoya v. Kermac Nuclear Fuels, Corp., 71 N.M. 157, 376 P.2d 576 (1962). The plaintiffs contend that since the employee filed a certificate of pre-existing impairment, under § 59--10--133, ......