Maryland Casualty Co. v. Cardillo

D.C. Circuit

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Cardillo

104 F.2d 254, 70 App. D.C. 121, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 4831

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMarch 27, 1939

DocketNo. 7215

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 104 F.2d 254 (Maryland Casualty Co. v. Cardillo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Cardillo, 104 F.2d 254, 70 App. D.C. 121, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 4831 (D.C. Cir. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The deputy commissioner awarded compensation to appellee Devers for an injury sustained while working as a carpenter on the Library of Congress annex. The insurance carrier filed its bill in the District Court for a review of the order. On hearing the court dismissed the bill, and the carrier appealed to this court.

The appeal is wholly based on the ground that there was no evidence to support the finding of continuing injury. We have examined the evidence carefully and are of opinion that there is enough in the record to justify the commissioner’s conclusion and order. It is of no consequence that we might have reached a different con-’ elusion, or that there -is a sharp conflict in the testimony, or even that the evidence preponderates strongly’ against the claimant. Under the statute¹ we cannot substitute our judgment for the commissioner’s judgment, nor can we weigh the evidence. As we have many times said, on questions of fact as to injury the findings of the commissioner, when supported by substantial evidence, are final. See Powell v. Hoage, 61 App.D.C. 99, 57 F.2d 766; Hoage v. Employers’ Liability Assur. Corporation, 62 App.D.C. 77, 64 F.2d 715; Employers’ Liability Assur. Corporation v. Hoage, 63 App.D.C. 53, 69 F.2d 227; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hoage, 64 App.D.C. 185, 76 F.2d 435; Employers’ Liability Assur. Corporation v. Hoage, 67 App.D.C. 245, 91 F.2d 318.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The deputy commissioner awarded compensation to appellee Devers for an injury sustained while working as a carpenter on the Library of Congress annex. The insurance carrier filed its bill in the District Court for a review of the order. On hearing the court dismissed the bill, and the carrier appealed to this court.

The appeal is wholly based on the ground that there was no evidence to support the finding of continuing injury. We have examined the evidence carefully and are of opinion that there is enough in the record to justify the commissioner’s conclusion and order. It is of no consequence that we might have reached a different con-’ elusion, or that there -is a sharp conflict in the testimony, or even that the evidence preponderates strongly’ against the claimant. Under the statute¹ we cannot substitute our judgment for the commissioner’s judgment, nor can we weigh the evidence. As we have many times said, on questions of fact as to injury the findings of the commissioner, when supported by substantial evidence, are final. See Powell v. Hoage, 61 App.D.C. 99, 57 F.2d 766; Hoage v. Employers’ Liability Assur. Corporation, 62 App.D.C. 77, 64 F.2d 715; Employers’ Liability Assur. Corporation v. Hoage, 63 App.D.C. 53, 69 F.2d 227; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hoage, 64 App.D.C. 185, 76 F.2d 435; Employers’ Liability Assur. Corporation v. Hoage, 67 App.D.C. 245, 91 F.2d 318.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 F.2d 254, 70 App. D.C. 121, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 4831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maryland-casualty-co-v-cardillo-cadc-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack