Valerio v. Industrial Commission
| Decision Date | 28 January 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 6614,6614 |
| Citation | 85 Ariz. 189,334 P.2d 768 |
| Parties | Maria M. VALERIO, Widow, Maria Rosa Valerio and Ralph Asuncion Valerio, minor children of Encarnacion G. Valerio, Deceased, Petitioners. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona, and Jack Cummard, A. R. Kleindienst, and H. R. Larson, Members of Industrial Commission of the State of Arizona; and Apache Powder Company, Respondents. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
H. S. McCluskey, Phoenix, for petitioners.
Robert K. Park, Phoenix, Attorney for respondent, Industrial Commission.
Evans, Kitchel & Jenckes, Earl H. Carroll, Phoenix, for respondent Apache Powder Co.
Petitioners are the widow and minor children of Encarnacion G. Valerio. They asked this court to review an award of respondent Industrial Commission of Arizona denying their claim for death benefits. The Apache Powder Company employed Valerio at Curtis, Arizona, as a shell-house helper. Valerio's work was light, requiring him to remove unwaxed paper shell casings from a conveyor belt and place them in wooden frames for further processing. From time to time he supplied himself with empty frames from an outside storage area. On June 28, 1956, at 10:00 o'clock a. m., Valerio was found unconscious in a prone position on the concrete floor outside the door leading to his working area. There were no witnesses to his fall. An ambulance was called and he was taken to the hospital of Dr. James M. Hesser in Benson, Arizona, where he died a few hours later. An autopsy revealed that death was due to subdural hemorrhage of the skull resulting from an injury to the right side of the head.
Petitioners first urge that the Commission erred in denying their motion to strike the opinion evidence of Dr. Hesser as to the 'cause of death.' It is not clear from petitioners' assignment of error or argument what opinion is the subject of the attack here. Dr. Hesser testified that death was (1) caused by a cerebral vascular accident and that (2) the 'injury could be the result of * * * a characteristic epileptic fall.' As to the first opinion, Dr. Hesser also testified that a cerebral vascular accident is a condition in which the brain is injured, usually by a hemorrhage of the blood vessels, and that it might be caused by external or internal pressure. He did not disagree with the report of the pathologist performing the autopsy that death was due to subdural hemorrhage of the skull. Plainly, Dr. Hesser is simply stating the cause of death in somewhat different language from that of the pathologist who performed the autopsy.
As to the second opinion, Dr. Hesser testified that he had treated many cases of epilepsy and was acquainted with the exact nature of the injury to decedent's head from the autopsy report. While the opinion assumes a fact in dispute, namely that decedent had an epileptic seizure, there is sufficient evidence to support such an assumption, as shall hereafter be shown. We conclude, therefore, that the Commission did not err in denying petitioners' motion to strike.
Petitioners attack the Commission's finding that decedent's death was wholly unrelated to his employment. They pointed out that he fell on the concrete floor which had a slight slope of 1/4"' in 12"' for drainage, and that the floor was covered by wax drippings which tended to melt in the heat of the summer sun. One witness testified that this would cause a man, 'if he was not used to it, to slip.' Under this evidence it was possible for the Commission to conclude that the fall might have been caused by the decedent's slipping on the concrete floor; but this was not the Commission's conclusion.
Seemingly its conclusion is predicated on the inference that the fall was precipitated by a pre-existing epileptic condition. Dr. Hesser testified that he had been treating decedent for epilepsy for some time prior to the accident, and that during seizures the decedent suffered wounds of the mouth and tongue. After the accident, Dr. Hesser observed bloody sputum on the lips of the decedent, and although he did not personally check the tongue, his nurse testified that she had observed a 1/4" case permits the inference that decedent's fall was caused by a condition of his employment, there is sufficient evidence to establish the decedent's idiopathic condition as of the time of the accident.
As triers of fact, the Commission is the judge of the weight of the evidence, and its conclusions will not be here disturbed on appeal. Harrington v. Industrial Commission, 84 Ariz. 356, 328 P.2d 311. We are not unmindful that both theories as to the cause of decedent's fall are to some extent negatived by other evidence developed in the course of the hearing, but it is sufficient to say, without a detailed recital, that here again the weight of the evidence is a matter for the Commission.
Petitioners next urge that even if the fall was caused by an idiopathic condition, the cause of death was the head injury suffered by contact...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brooks v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona, 1
...and the conclusions drawn will not be set aside unless there is no reasonable basis for the determination. Valerio v. Industrial Commission, 85 Ariz. 189, 334 P.2d 768 (1959); Sloan v. Industrial Commission, 14 Ariz.App. 354, 483 P.2d 586 23 Ariz.App. at 108, 530 P.2d at 1141. In Kerr we af......
-
Hackworth v. Indus. Comm'n of Arizona, 2 CA–IC 2011–0014.
...issue, see, e.g., Circle K Store No. 1131 v. Indus., Comm'n, 165 Ariz. 91, 95–96, 796 P.2d 893, 897–98 (1990); Valerio v. Indus. Comm'n, 85 Ariz. 189, 191–92, 334 P.2d 768, 769–70 (1959); PMC Powdered Metals Corp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 15 Ariz.App. 460, 463–64 & 463 n. 1, 489 P.2d 718, 721–22 &......
-
Willey, Matter of
...and the conclusions drawn will not be set aside unless there is no reasonable basis for the determination. Valerio v. Industrial Commission, 85 Ariz. 189, 334 P.2d 768 (1959); Sloan v. Industrial Commission, 14 Ariz.App. 354, 483 P.2d 586 We must ask, then, whether there was a reasonable ba......
-
Sunland Beef Co., Inc. v. Industrial Com'n
...have caused the fall, and that Delaware failed to demonstrate that his injury was work-related. Sunland also cites Valerio v. Indus. Comm'n, 85 Ariz. 189, 334 P.2d 768 (1959), in which our supreme court explained that merely because "a fall occurs while the victim is at work does not automa......