Opinion
No. 13,828.
Filed November 14, 1929.
1. MASTER AND SERVANT — Workmen's Compensation — Limited to Accidental Injuries — Burden of Proof on That Proposition. — In a proceeding before the Industrial Board for compensation for an accidental injury claimed to have arisen out of and in the course of his employment, the burden is on the claimant to prove that his disability was the result of an accidental injury, and, if he fails to establish this fact, he is not entitled to an award of compensation. p. 280.
2. MASTER AND SERVANT — Workmen's Compensation — Review of Decision of Industrial Board — Weighing Evidence. — On appeal from a decision of the Industrial Board in a Workmen's Compensation case, the Appellate Court cannot weigh the evidence. p. 280.
From Industrial Board of Indiana.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Luiz Brenez for compensation for an injury claimed to have arisen out of and in the course of his employment by the Inland Steel Company. From an award denying compensation, the claimant appealed. Affirmed. By the court in banc.
Moore Chudom and Arthur E. Letsinger, for appellant.
William J. McAleer, Francis J. Dorsey, James J. Clark and William L. Travis, for appellee.
February 9, 1929, the appellant filed with the Industrial Board an application for an award of compensation on account of alleged injuries, claimed by him to have been sustained on November 8, 1928, by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with appellee. The application was first heard by a single member of the board, who found, inter alia, "that the disability of the plaintiff was not the result of an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, but was due to other causes." Upon this finding, there was an award denying compensation.
Thereafter, there was duly had a review by the full Industrial Board, which, after reviewing the evidence, found, inter alia, "that the evidence fails to sustain the allegation in plaintiff's application that such disability was the result of an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of plaintiff's employment by the defendant," and this finding was followed by an award denying compensation.
Upon the hearing it was a controverted question whether the appellant's disability was the result of an accident, or was the result of a disease. The burden was upon the appellant, 1, 2. as a claimant for compensation, to establish the fact that his disability was the result of an accident. This burden he failed to discharge, although he had some evidence tending to establish that fact. We cannot weigh the evidence and the award must be affirmed.