Opinion
Margaret Bates Ellison, Denver, for respondent Martha Baker.
Wood, Ris & Hames, F. Michael Ludwig, Denver, for petitioners.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Peter L. Dye, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondent Industrial Commission of Colorado.
ENOCH, Judge.
This is a workmen's compensation claim which arose out of an injury to respondent, Martha Baker, on April 2, 1965. Petitioners, F. W. Woolworth Co. and Travelers Insurance Co., are, respectively, respondent's employer and its insurance carrier. On appeal to this court, they assert that:
'The Commission, in adopting as its Order, the Referee's Supplemental Order of September 23, 1969, acted without or in exces of its powers and that the findings of fact made by the Referee in said Order approved by The Commission, do not support the Order or award as the final Order of The Commission.'
The referee's supplemental order of September 23, 1969, which is the basis of the petitioner's claim, arose out of a remand order from the District Court of an earlier order by the referee and Industrial Commission. The referee's supplemental order substantially complies with the directions contained in the remand order of the District Court. However, it is remiss in that the District Court directed that respondent's compensation be computed to begin on October 11, 1966, and that an adjustment be made for any compensation paid by petitioners to respondent subsequent to that date. The supplemental order of the referee directed that payment commence as of March 10, 1967, and thereby failed to give credit for payments made by petitioners between October 11, 1966 and March 10, 1967.
We hold that the referee was in error in failing to carry out exactly the remand order of the District Court and that the Industrial Commission should not have adopted the order. The award should have commenced October 11, 1966, and petitioners should have been given credit for all payments made subsequent to that date. In that respect, petitioners' argument quoted above is correct.
However, the main thrust of the petitioners' argument on appeal is that the findings of fact made by the referee were not supported by the evidence. In focusing our attention on this argument, it is noted that this conflict has suffered a duration of over five years. A voluminous record has accumulated during that time. We have examined that record and have paid particular attention to the specific portions related to this appeal. A full recitation of the evidence which supports the referee's findings would serve no useful purpose. Suffice it to say that there was ample evidence to support the findings made by the referee.
The order of the Industrial Commission is remanded with directions that a new order consistent with this opinion be entered.
DWYER and PIERCE, JJ., concur.