Wimmer v. Industrial Commission

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Wimmer v. Industrial Commission

489 P.2d 1245, 15 Ariz. App. 543, 1971 Ariz. App. LEXIS 824

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona

DecidedOctober 28, 1971

DocketNo. 1 CA-IC 659

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 489 P.2d 1245 (Wimmer 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

Wimmer v. Industrial Commission, 489 P.2d 1245, 15 Ariz. App. 543, 1971 Ariz. App. LEXIS 824 (Ark. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

HAIRE, Judge.

In this review by certiorari of an Industrial Commission award, we are asked to set aside an award which denied the petitioning employee’s claim relating to an alleged industrial injury to his back. We have reviewed the evidence presented, and while based upon that evidence this Court might well have reached a different result, we find support for the award which was entered by the hearing officer and affirmed by the Commission. In affirming the award we note that there were certain inconsistencies and contradictions in peti- ■ tioner’s testimony and that inferences could be drawn from other evidence which might cast some doubt on the petitioner’s credibility. Because of these inconsistencies, contradictions and possible inferences, the hearing officer was not required to accept petitioner’s testimony as to whether he was injured in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. See Carabetta v. Industrial Commission, 12 Ariz.App. 239, 469 P.2d 473 (1970); Fish v. Industrial Commission, 12 Ariz.App. 486, 472 P.2d 97 (1970).

The award is affirmed.

JACOBSON, P. J., and EUBANK, J., concur.

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

HAIRE, Judge.

In this review by certiorari of an Industrial Commission award, we are asked to set aside an award which denied the petitioning employee’s claim relating to an alleged industrial injury to his back. We have reviewed the evidence presented, and while based upon that evidence this Court might well have reached a different result, we find support for the award which was entered by the hearing officer and affirmed by the Commission. In affirming the award we note that there were certain inconsistencies and contradictions in peti- ■ tioner’s testimony and that inferences could be drawn from other evidence which might cast some doubt on the petitioner’s credibility. Because of these inconsistencies, contradictions and possible inferences, the hearing officer was not required to accept petitioner’s testimony as to whether he was injured in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. See Carabetta v. Industrial Commission, 12 Ariz.App. 239, 469 P.2d 473 (1970); Fish v. Industrial Commission, 12 Ariz.App. 486, 472 P.2d 97 (1970).

The award is affirmed.

JACOBSON, P. J., and EUBANK, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

489 P.2d 1245, 15 Ariz. App. 543, 1971 Ariz. App. LEXIS 824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wimmer-v-industrial-commission-arizctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack