Smiles v. Industrial Commission

406 P.2d 885, 2 Ariz. App. 167
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona
DecidedOctober 28, 1965
Docket1 CA-IC 38
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 406 P.2d 885 (Smiles v. Industrial Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Smiles v. Industrial Commission, 406 P.2d 885, 2 Ariz. App. 167 (Ark. Ct. App. 1965).

Opinion

STEVENS, Chief Judge.

Petitioner asked a review of an award of permanent partial disability of 8.28 per cent, or $14.05 monthly.

Petitioner suffered a compensable injury to his back 13 August 1956. He was loading a truck with groceries and felt something snap in his low back. His claim was accepted and he was paid medical benefits which included surgery, as well as total partial disability until January 12, 1960, when the Commission determined that his condition had stabilized. He was then awax-ded monthly compensation based on 8.28 per cent permanent partial disability. Subsequently, however, he was awarded additional medical benefits including further surgery; but the Award of 16 April 1964 from which this review is taken, detexmined that petitioner’s condition was then stationary and reinstated monthly compensation based on the 8.28 permanent partial disability.

The issue presented is whether the award of the Commission is supported by the evidence.

We have reviewed the transcripts and the file presented on this review. A conflict existed in the medical testimony as to whether petitioner is totally disabled, or consciously playing the role of invalid. This conflict was resolved by the Commission against the petitioner. This Court will not substitute its opinion for that of the Commission where the Commission has resolved a conflict in medical testimony. Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Industrial Commission, 97 Ariz. 256, 399 P.2d 664 (1965).

The award is affirmed.

CAMERON and DONOFRIO, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Parr v. united/valeey Forge
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2024
pierpont/federated v. Terando
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2024
Peterson v. navajo/travelers
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2023
transdev/old v. Nivens
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2022
Olsen v. amazon/american
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2022
Garcia v. vw/copperpoint
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2022
Ifezue v. ironwood/copperpoint
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2021
Jackson v. Ssp america/north River Ins
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2021
C2 enterprises/berkshire v. Monge
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2021
Martin v. Industrial Commission
513 P.2d 383 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1973)
Zaragoza v. Industrial Commission
445 P.2d 184 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1968)
Wones v. Industrial Commission
437 P.2d 988 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1968)
Frizzell v. Industrial Commission
432 P.2d 152 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1967)
Baxter v. Industrial Commission
430 P.2d 735 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
406 P.2d 885, 2 Ariz. App. 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smiles-v-industrial-commission-arizctapp-1965.