Opinion
No. 20624
Opinion Filed January 28, 1930.
(Syllabus.)
Master and Servant — Workmen's Compensation Law — Conclusiveness of Industrial Commission's Findings of Fact.
The decision of the Industrial Commission is final as to all questions of fact, if there is any competent evidence to reasonably support it. This court is not authorized to weigh the evidence upon which any finding of fact is based, and will consider that evidence only for the purpose of determining whether or not there is any competent evidence to reasonably support the finding of fact.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 2.
Proceedings by Charles F. Chilton to review the decision of the Industrial Commission denying compensation against the Rialto Mining Company and its insurance carrier, United States Fidelity Guaranty Company. Petition for review denied and order affirmed.
Kelsey Norman and James C. Norman, for petitioner.
Owen Looney, J. Fred Swanson, and Paul N. Lindsey, for respondents.
This is a proceeding by Charles F. Chilton to review an order of the State Industrial Commission denying him compensation for an injury alleged to have been received by him while in the employ of the Rialto Mining Company, a corporation. The United States Fidelity Guaranty Company is insurance carrier for said corporation and is made a party respondent herein.
It appears from the record that on January 3, 1929, petitioner, while in the employ of respondent Mining Company and while engaged in braking boulders in the course of said employment, was struck in the left eye by particles thereof. A claim was by him presented to the Industrial Commission and a hearing had thereon before said Commission on the 20th day of July, 1929, resulting in an order denying compensation. The Commission based its opinion on the ground that the evidence failed to establish that the disability complained of was the result of the injury sustained.
Petitioner's trouble, from the record, appears to be a cataract which, at the time of hearing, had caused a 90 per cent. loss in the vision of the left eye. It also appears that the right eye was to a certain extent similarly affected, although it does not appear from the evidence that petitioner ever received any injury thereto.
There is ample expert evidence in the record that this condition could not have resulted from the injury received, and the Industrial Commission so found. This finding, under repeated holdings of this court, is binding upon us.
Petition for review should be denied and order denying compensation affirmed.
BENNETT, JEFFREY, HALL, and DIFFENDAFFER, Commissioners, concur.
By the Court: It is so ordered.
Note. — See under (1) 28 R. C. L. p. 827; 3 R. C. L. Supp. p. 1600; 4 R. C. L. Supp. p. 1872; 5 R. C. L. Supp. p. 1580; 6 R. C. L. Supp. p. 1768; 7 R. C. L. Supp. p. 1011. See Workmen's, Compensation Acts — C. J. § 127, p. 122, n. 40.