Hall v. Industrial Commission

Arizona Supreme Court

Hall v. Industrial Commission

315 P.2d 659, 83 Ariz. 1, 1957 Ariz. LEXIS 131

CourtArizona Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 26, 1957

Docket6264

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 315 P.2d 659 (Hall v. Industrial Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hall v. Industrial Commission, 315 P.2d 659, 83 Ariz. 1, 1957 Ariz. LEXIS 131 (Ark. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

WINDES, Justice.

Certiorari to the Industrial Commission to test the validity of an award denying compensation to petitioner. On September 19, 1955, petitioner filed claim for compensation based upon an alleged accident (an electric shock), occurring May 31, 1955. After rehearing the commission found that applicant sustained the alleged shock; *2 that subsequent thereto he suffered an episode of acute coronary insufficiency; that no causal relationship existed between the electric shock and the subsequent heart condition; and the shock did not result in personal injury to applicant. The question presented is whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding that there was no¡ causal connection between petitioner’s heart ailment and the accident. If this finding is sustainable, the finding that the electric shock did not result in personal injury naturally follows.

A correct answer to this problem calls for expert medical evidence. Dr. Daniel T. Meredith gave as his opinion that the shock did cause and contribute to petitioner’s ailment. Drs. Lee Ehrlich, J. D. Hamer and Monroe H. Green were of the opinion that the electric shock had nothing to do with causing his ailment. While these three doctors did not personally examine the patient, their opinions were based on the same history and fact situation as that of Dr. Meredith. With this conflict in the evidence, we cannot disturb the award. There is no occasion for a tiresome repetition of authority Iwhich does not allow us to weigh conflictingVvidence.

Award affirmed.

UDALL,/c. and PHELPS, STRUCK-MEYER, and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.

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

WINDES, Justice.

Certiorari to the Industrial Commission to test the validity of an award denying compensation to petitioner. On September 19, 1955, petitioner filed claim for compensation based upon an alleged accident (an electric shock), occurring May 31, 1955. After rehearing the commission found that applicant sustained the alleged shock; *2 that subsequent thereto he suffered an episode of acute coronary insufficiency; that no causal relationship existed between the electric shock and the subsequent heart condition; and the shock did not result in personal injury to applicant. The question presented is whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding that there was no¡ causal connection between petitioner’s heart ailment and the accident. If this finding is sustainable, the finding that the electric shock did not result in personal injury naturally follows.

A correct answer to this problem calls for expert medical evidence. Dr. Daniel T. Meredith gave as his opinion that the shock did cause and contribute to petitioner’s ailment. Drs. Lee Ehrlich, J. D. Hamer and Monroe H. Green were of the opinion that the electric shock had nothing to do with causing his ailment. While these three doctors did not personally examine the patient, their opinions were based on the same history and fact situation as that of Dr. Meredith. With this conflict in the evidence, we cannot disturb the award. There is no occasion for a tiresome repetition of authority Iwhich does not allow us to weigh conflictingVvidence.

Award affirmed.

UDALL,/c. and PHELPS, STRUCK-MEYER, and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

315 P.2d 659, 83 Ariz. 1, 1957 Ariz. LEXIS 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-industrial-commission-ariz-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack