Opinion
Alious Rockett, William J. Baum, Denver, for respondents S & I Products, Inc., and State Compensation Insurance Fund.
Sol Cohen and Morton L. Davis, Denver, for petitioner.
John P. Moore, Atty. Gen., John E. Bush, Deputy Atty. Gen., Peter L. Dye, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondent Industrial Commission of Colorado.
COYTE, Judge.
Petitioner, Darrel Nopens, seeks review of an Industrial Commission order which dismissed his claim for workmen's compensation. We affirm.
The record discloses that on November 5, 1969, while petitioner was employed by respondent S & I Products, Inc., he twisted his back when he slipped while carrying a heavy grinding wheel. Petitioner reported the accident to his employer and a report was filed with the Division of Labor. He consulted his private physician who recommended that he refrain from heavy work, but no claim for compensation was filed. Petitioner continued to complain about back pains and consulted two other physicians during the year 1970. However, they were unable to relate his back pains to the industrial accident. In December 1971, petitioner, while in his home, suddenly experienced numbness and weakness in both legs when he arose from a chair and turned in a standing position. On December 21, 1971, he consulted a fourth physician who was of the opinion that his complaints stemmed from the industrial accident in November 1969 and who recommended remedial surgery. Thereafter, petitioner filed a claim for workmens' compensation, and, not being able to recall whether a prior claim had been filed, he also filed a petition to reopen.
At the subsequent hearing, petitioner introduced the medical report and testimony of the physician who examined him after the incident in his home in December 1971. In essence, that physician testified that in his opinion petitioner suffered a ruptured disc as the result of his industrial accident in November 1969. In addition, the medical reports of the two physicians who examined petitioner in 1970 were introduced into evidence to show that he was not aware of a work-related injury until the December 1971 examination. Those reports reveal that the physician who examined him on July 31, 1970, was unable to make any diagnosis which related petitioner's complaints to the industrial accident, and the neurosurgeon who examined petitioner on September 29, 1970, concluded that he had no neurological impairment.
In his order, the referee considered the merits of petitioner's claim and dismissed it on the basis of his finding that petitioner's difficulties were caused by an independent intervening accident which occurred in his home in December 1971, rather than by the industrial accident of November 5, 1969. The Industrial Commission affirmed and adopted the order of the referee, and petitioner brings this petition for review contending that the record lacks evidence to support the finding of the referee.
The record contains conflicting medical evidence with respect to the cause of petitioner's difficulties. In such cases courts must defer to the expertise of the Industrial Commission. When, as here, the finding of the Commission is supported by competent evidence, its choice between contradictory inferences arising from conflicting medical evidence will not be disturbed on review. Rocky Mountain Dairy Products v. Pease, 161 Colo. 216, 422 P.2d 630; Wierman v. Tunnell, 108 Colo. 544, 120 P.2d 638.
In light of our disposition of the case, it is not necessary to consider the grounds of error asserted by respondents.
Order affirmed.
PIERCE and SMITH, JJ., concur.