Jones v. Industrial Commission

Supreme Court of Colorado

Jones v. Industrial Commission

365 P.2d 689, 148 Colo. 253, 1961 Colo. LEXIS 401

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedOctober 23, 1961

DocketNo. 19,737

StatusPublished

This text of 365 P.2d 689 (Jones v. Industrial Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. Industrial Commission, 365 P.2d 689, 148 Colo. 253, 1961 Colo. LEXIS 401 (Colo. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Day.

The question presented by this writ of error is whether a seventy year old carpenter, of more than forty-seven years experience in his trade, who suffered a prior heart attack from which he had not fully recovered and who was shown to have died from coronary occlusion due to coronary sclerosis and to arteriosclerosis, can be said to have suffered an accidental death proximately caused by his employment.

The Industrial Commission, in its findings, stated:

“No evidence is presented that decedent was performing other than the ordinary work of his trade. Indeed, the work as described, seems to have been lighter than the regular work of a carpenter. No evidence is presented of accidental strain or accidental overexertion which can be considered as an accidental injury.”

The record also shows that the claimant widow, Mrs. Jones, seeking death benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, did not present any competent medical evidence to establish a causal connection between the work decedent was doing and the heart attack suffered while at his work and from which he died. The only evidence on the point, viewed in its most favorable light, was negative. A medical witness stated, “Who can say that what he was doing did not cause the heart attack?” He also asserted the converse to be true — that no one could say that it did.

The trial court on review sustained the findings, conclusions and final order entered by the Commission. Both the Commission and the court concluded that the widow failed to sustain the burden of establishing that the death resulted from an accident arising out of the employment. The findings of the Commission, based upon the undisputed evidence and the inferences to be drawn therefrom, not susceptible of any other conclu[255]*255sion than that reached by the Commission, will not be disturbed by this court on review. See Industrial Commission v. Horner, 137 Colo. 368, 325 P. (2d) 698, and authorities cited therein.

The judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Sutton and Mr. Justice Frantz concur.

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

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Day.

The question presented by this writ of error is whether a seventy year old carpenter, of more than forty-seven years experience in his trade, who suffered a prior heart attack from which he had not fully recovered and who was shown to have died from coronary occlusion due to coronary sclerosis and to arteriosclerosis, can be said to have suffered an accidental death proximately caused by his employment.

The Industrial Commission, in its findings, stated:

“No evidence is presented that decedent was performing other than the ordinary work of his trade. Indeed, the work as described, seems to have been lighter than the regular work of a carpenter. No evidence is presented of accidental strain or accidental overexertion which can be considered as an accidental injury.”

The record also shows that the claimant widow, Mrs. Jones, seeking death benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, did not present any competent medical evidence to establish a causal connection between the work decedent was doing and the heart attack suffered while at his work and from which he died. The only evidence on the point, viewed in its most favorable light, was negative. A medical witness stated, “Who can say that what he was doing did not cause the heart attack?” He also asserted the converse to be true — that no one could say that it did.

The trial court on review sustained the findings, conclusions and final order entered by the Commission. Both the Commission and the court concluded that the widow failed to sustain the burden of establishing that the death resulted from an accident arising out of the employment. The findings of the Commission, based upon the undisputed evidence and the inferences to be drawn therefrom, not susceptible of any other conclu[255]*255sion than that reached by the Commission, will not be disturbed by this court on review. See Industrial Commission v. Horner, 137 Colo. 368, 325 P. (2d) 698, and authorities cited therein.

The judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Sutton and Mr. Justice Frantz concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

365 P.2d 689, 148 Colo. 253, 1961 Colo. LEXIS 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-industrial-commission-colo-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack