Galbraith v. Stephens

Indiana Court of Appeals

Galbraith v. Stephens

181 N.E. 377, 94 Ind. App. 460, 1932 Ind. App. LEXIS 191

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 2, 1932

DocketNo. 14,594.

StatusPublished

This text of 181 N.E. 377 (Galbraith v. Stephens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Galbraith v. Stephens, 181 N.E. 377, 94 Ind. App. 460, 1932 Ind. App. LEXIS 191 (Ind. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Wood, C. J.

Appellee filed his application with the Industrial Board for compensation for the loss of his right leg as the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by appellant. From an order of the full board awarding compensation, appellant appealed to this court assigning as error that the award of the full board is contrary to law.

Appellant discusses two questions in his brief: The first is, that the full Industrial Board abused its discretion in refusing to permit appellant, upon application, to introduce additional evidence at the hearing before the full board. An examination of the record does not sustain this assertion. §§9472-9505 Burns Supp. 1929; *461 Consumers Co. v. Ceislik (1919), 69 Ind. App. 333, 121 N. E. 832; Riley v. Hunt (1927), 85 Ind. App. 647, 155 N. E. 523; Crickmore, Admx., v. Pattison (1931), 92 Ind. App. 309, 175 N. E. 138.

Second, appellant contends that there is no evidence to sustain the finding and award of the full Industrial Board. An examination of the record discloses that there was some evidence to support the finding. When there is some evidence an award will not be disturbed on appeal. Hill v. Starco Coal Co. (1928), 88 Ind. App. 24, 163 N. E. 118; Lazarus v. Scherer (1931), 92 Ind. App. 90, 174 N. E. 293.

The award is affirmed, and, as required by the statute, is increased five per cent.

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

Wood, C. J.

Appellee filed his application with the Industrial Board for compensation for the loss of his right leg as the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by appellant. From an order of the full board awarding compensation, appellant appealed to this court assigning as error that the award of the full board is contrary to law.

Appellant discusses two questions in his brief: The first is, that the full Industrial Board abused its discretion in refusing to permit appellant, upon application, to introduce additional evidence at the hearing before the full board. An examination of the record does not sustain this assertion. §§9472-9505 Burns Supp. 1929; *461 Consumers Co. v. Ceislik (1919), 69 Ind. App. 333, 121 N. E. 832; Riley v. Hunt (1927), 85 Ind. App. 647, 155 N. E. 523; Crickmore, Admx., v. Pattison (1931), 92 Ind. App. 309, 175 N. E. 138.

Second, appellant contends that there is no evidence to sustain the finding and award of the full Industrial Board. An examination of the record discloses that there was some evidence to support the finding. When there is some evidence an award will not be disturbed on appeal. Hill v. Starco Coal Co. (1928), 88 Ind. App. 24, 163 N. E. 118; Lazarus v. Scherer (1931), 92 Ind. App. 90, 174 N. E. 293.

The award is affirmed, and, as required by the statute, is increased five per cent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 N.E. 377, 94 Ind. App. 460, 1932 Ind. App. LEXIS 191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galbraith-v-stephens-indctapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack