Winteroth v. Industrial Com'n of Colo., 13304.

• Decision Date: 29 May 1933
• Docket Number: 13304.
• Citation: 22 P.2d 865,93 Colo. 38
• Parties: WINTEROTH v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF COLORADO et al.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

22 P.2d 865

93 Colo. 38

WINTEROTH v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF COLORADO et al.

No. 13304.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

May 29, 1933

Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; James C Starkweather, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by William Winteroth, claimant, opposed by the Western Steam Laundry employer, and the London Guarantee & Accident Company Limited, insurer. The Industrial Commission of Colorado made an award, and the proceeding was then taken to the district court, and, to review its judgment, the claimant brings error.

Affirmed.

Harry C. Green, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.

Paul P Prosser, Atty. Gen., and M. S. Ginsberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error Industrial Commission of Colorado.

William E. Hutton and J. P. Nordlund, both of Denver, for other defendants in error.

BUTLER Justice.

On July 17, 1931, while employed by Western Steam Laundry, William Winteroth sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The injury was a sprain or torn ligament in the left knee. The Industrial Commission found: 'That the claimant sustained an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment July 17, 1931, and left work upon that date. Temporary total disability terminated December 1, 1931, and the claimant has sustained a 25 per cent. loss of the use of the left leg measured at the knee. His average weekly wages were $11.15.' The award was that the respondents pay 'compensation to the claimant at the rate of $5.56 per week, from July 28, 1931, to November 30, 1931, both dates inclusive, as compensation for temporary disability, and 34.75 weeks thereafter as compensation for permanent disability and in full settlement of claim for compensation filed herein.'

1. Winteroth's counsel contends that the findings are not sufficiently detailed to enable the court to determine whether or not the award is supported by the facts. The evidence is short and undisputed, and may be treated as the findings of fact and considered accordingly; therefore it is not necessary to remand the case for more detailed findings. Prouse v. Industrial Commission, 69 Colo. 382, 384, 194 P. 625.

2. The award was made under section 73 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, being C. L. § 4447, as amended by Session Laws of 1929, c. 186, p. 655, § 10. It is said that the award should have been made under section 78 of the act, being C L. § 4452, as amended by Section Laws of 1929, c. 186, p. 659, § 11. Section 73, as amended, provides: 'Section 73. In case an injury results in a loss set forth in the following schedule, the injured employee shall, in addition to compensation to be paid for temporary disability, receive compensation for the period as specified, to-wit.: * * *...