Showers v. Crowell

W.D. Louisiana

Showers v. Crowell

46 F.2d 361, 1930 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1615, 1931 A.M.C. 804

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana

DecidedJune 5, 1930

DocketNo. 376

StatusPublished

This text of 46 F.2d 361 (Showers v. Crowell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Showers v. Crowell, 46 F.2d 361, 1930 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1615, 1931 A.M.C. 804 (W.D. La. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

DAWKINS, District Judge.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner, vacating an order allowing the complainant compensation under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act of March 4, 1927 (33 USCA §§ 901-950).

As I conceive the meaning of the provision for review of a decision of the Commissioner in cases of this kind, it amounts to the same thing as the power of review at common law in eases of appeal from the verdict of a jury; that is, if there was substantial evidence before the commissioner to sustain the finding, then I would not be justified in reversing his decision upon the weight of the evidence.

An examination of the 'ease discloses that there was substantial testimony by one or more of the physicians who examined Showers, indicating that he had fully recovered from the effects of his injury and that he is not now suffering any pain or disability attributable to the accident for which he was allowed compensation. Under the circumstances, I feel constrained to affirm the finding of the commissioner. Proper decree may be presented.

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

DAWKINS, District Judge.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner, vacating an order allowing the complainant compensation under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act of March 4, 1927 (33 USCA §§ 901-950).

As I conceive the meaning of the provision for review of a decision of the Commissioner in cases of this kind, it amounts to the same thing as the power of review at common law in eases of appeal from the verdict of a jury; that is, if there was substantial evidence before the commissioner to sustain the finding, then I would not be justified in reversing his decision upon the weight of the evidence.

An examination of the 'ease discloses that there was substantial testimony by one or more of the physicians who examined Showers, indicating that he had fully recovered from the effects of his injury and that he is not now suffering any pain or disability attributable to the accident for which he was allowed compensation. Under the circumstances, I feel constrained to affirm the finding of the commissioner. Proper decree may be presented.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 F.2d 361, 1930 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1615, 1931 A.M.C. 804, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/showers-v-crowell-lawd-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack