Burton v. Western Iron and Foundry Co.

Supreme Court of Kansas

Burton v. Western Iron and Foundry Co.

249 P.2d 688, 173 Kan. 506, 1952 Kan. LEXIS 224

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedNovember 8, 1952

Docket38,711

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 249 P.2d 688 (Burton v. Western Iron and Foundry Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burton v. Western Iron and Foundry Co., 249 P.2d 688, 173 Kan. 506, 1952 Kan. LEXIS 224 (kan 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Price, J.:

This is a workmens compensation case, and the only question is whether the judgment of the trial court denying recovery is sustained by the evidence.

While employed by respondent in doing heavy work claimant gradually developed a soreness in his right arm. The evidence is rather hazy and indefinite concerning just how or when the condition developed. In our view of the case we consider it unnecessary to encumber this opinion with a detailed summary of the evidence, and it is sufficient to state that all of the competent medical testimony was to the effect the soreness in claimant’s arm was entirely unrelated to trauma. The commissioner found that claimant failed to prove personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and denied recovery.

On appeal, the lower court, after correcting one of the findings as to a date, and which is immaterial, approved and adopted the findings and ruling of the commissioner. Claimant has appealed.

The statute, G. S. 1949, 44-556, provides that an appeal to this court in a workmen’s compensation case is limited to questions of law, and it has been said many times that this means, so far as the facts are concerned, this court’s duty is to determine whether the trial court’s findings are supported by any substantial, competent evidence. (Davis v. Braun, 170 Kan. 177, 223 P. 2d 958; Shue v . LaGesse, 173 Kan. 309, 245 P. 2d 966.)

From an examination of the record it is clear that the ruling of the trial court is amply sustained by the evidence. In fact, we find no evidence which would support a ruling to the contrary.

Two other matters discussed in claimant’s brief have been noted, but require no mention.

The judgment of the lower court was correct and is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Price, J.:

This is a workmens compensation case, and the only question is whether the judgment of the trial court denying recovery is sustained by the evidence.

While employed by respondent in doing heavy work claimant gradually developed a soreness in his right arm. The evidence is rather hazy and indefinite concerning just how or when the condition developed. In our view of the case we consider it unnecessary to encumber this opinion with a detailed summary of the evidence, and it is sufficient to state that all of the competent medical testimony was to the effect the soreness in claimant’s arm was entirely unrelated to trauma. The commissioner found that claimant failed to prove personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and denied recovery.

On appeal, the lower court, after correcting one of the findings as to a date, and which is immaterial, approved and adopted the findings and ruling of the commissioner. Claimant has appealed.

The statute, G. S. 1949, 44-556, provides that an appeal to this court in a workmen’s compensation case is limited to questions of law, and it has been said many times that this means, so far as the facts are concerned, this court’s duty is to determine whether the trial court’s findings are supported by any substantial, competent evidence. (Davis v. Braun, 170 Kan. 177, 223 P. 2d 958; Shue v . LaGesse, 173 Kan. 309, 245 P. 2d 966.)

From an examination of the record it is clear that the ruling of the trial court is amply sustained by the evidence. In fact, we find no evidence which would support a ruling to the contrary.

Two other matters discussed in claimant’s brief have been noted, but require no mention.

The judgment of the lower court was correct and is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 P.2d 688, 173 Kan. 506, 1952 Kan. LEXIS 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burton-v-western-iron-and-foundry-co-kan-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack