Lawrence v. B. Belzer Fruit Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Lawrence v. B. Belzer Fruit Co.

250 N.W. 75, 189 Minn. 522, 1933 Minn. LEXIS 823

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedSeptember 29, 1933

DocketNo. 29,565.

StatusPublished

This text of 250 N.W. 75 (Lawrence v. B. Belzer Fruit Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lawrence v. B. Belzer Fruit Co., 250 N.W. 75, 189 Minn. 522, 1933 Minn. LEXIS 823 (Mich. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

LORING, Justice.

This case comes here upon a writ of certiorari from the industrial commission. Respondent was awarded compensation, before a referee of the industrial commission, for an injury to his eye, and the employer and its insurer appealed to the industrial commission, which affirmed the award.

Respondent was a truck driver in the employ of the B. Belzer Fruit Company. March 4, 1932, he had trouble with one of his eyes and consulted a doctor. The doctor testified that he removed *523 a foreign substance from the eye. The doctor treated the eye later and reported it to be doing well. Respondent went back to work, and May 17, 1932, he was obliged to discontinue working because of the pain in the eye. He was sent to several physicians by the insured or its representative. The evidence is somewhat conflicting; but the respondent himself, upon cross-examination, and his wife upon direct examination, testified that the eye never completely recovered from the original injury, which the evidence shows was inflicted by a particle of wood from the boxes which the employe was handling in the course of his employment.

The industrial commission has found for the employe. We think the evidence justifies its finding. Respondent is alloAved $50 attorney’s fees over and above his taxable costs and disbursements.

Affirmed.

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

LORING, Justice.

This case comes here upon a writ of certiorari from the industrial commission. Respondent was awarded compensation, before a referee of the industrial commission, for an injury to his eye, and the employer and its insurer appealed to the industrial commission, which affirmed the award.

Respondent was a truck driver in the employ of the B. Belzer Fruit Company. March 4, 1932, he had trouble with one of his eyes and consulted a doctor. The doctor testified that he removed *523 a foreign substance from the eye. The doctor treated the eye later and reported it to be doing well. Respondent went back to work, and May 17, 1932, he was obliged to discontinue working because of the pain in the eye. He was sent to several physicians by the insured or its representative. The evidence is somewhat conflicting; but the respondent himself, upon cross-examination, and his wife upon direct examination, testified that the eye never completely recovered from the original injury, which the evidence shows was inflicted by a particle of wood from the boxes which the employe was handling in the course of his employment.

The industrial commission has found for the employe. We think the evidence justifies its finding. Respondent is alloAved $50 attorney’s fees over and above his taxable costs and disbursements.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 N.W. 75, 189 Minn. 522, 1933 Minn. LEXIS 823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-v-b-belzer-fruit-co-minn-1933.