Case ID: wis_188/html/0053-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Vinje, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pierce, Appellant, vs. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin and others, Respondents.
    
      September 26
    
    October 20, 1925.
    
    
      Workmen’s compensation act: Constitutionality: Findings of commission on competent evidence: Weight on appeal.
    
    1. The decision in Pierce v. Industrial Comm. 179 Wis. 189, that appellant is within the provisions of the workmen’s compensation act, is adhered to. p. 54.
    2. The workmen’s compensation act does not contravene sec. 1, amendm. XIV, of the federal constitution. Booth Fisheries Co. v. Industrial Comm. 185 Wis. 127, adhered to. p. 54.
    3. An award of compensation by the industrial commission upon questions of fact will not be disturbed where there is any credible evidence to sustain it. p. 54.
    Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Dane county: E. Ray Stevens, Circuit Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    This case was here on an appeal from a temporary award and is reported in 179 Wis. 189, 190 N. W. 80. This appeal is from a permanent award for the same injuries. For a fuller statement of facts see 179 Wis. 189, 190 N. W. 80.
    For the appellant there was a brief by Hanitch, Hartley & Johnson, and oral argument by I. C. Fritschler, all of Superior.
    For the respondents there was a brief by the Attorney General and T. L. McIntosh, assistant attorney general, and oral argument by Mr. McIntosh.
    
   Vinje, C. J.

The appellant assigns as errors:

“(1) The court erred in holding that employment of applicant, Barker, brought the appellant within the provisions of the workmen’s compensation act and made him liable to pay the compensation awarded. (2) Court erred in entering-judgment affirming award of the Industrial Commission as to applicant, Barker. (3) Court erred in holding the compensation act, as amended and construed, constitutional. (4) Court erred in affirming the findings and award as to a temporary total disability of twenty-three weeks and five days, and granting judgment thereon. (5) Court erred in affirming the findings and award as to a permanent partial disability equivalent to thirty-five per cent, loss of use of left hand at the wrist and granting judgment thereon.”

The first two assignments of error were passed upon adversely to appellant in the case of Pierce v. Industrial Comm. 179 Wis. 189, 190 N. W. 80, and we see no reason for changing our view as there expressed.

The contention that the compensation act is unconstitutional and contravenes sec. 1 of the Fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution was negatived in the case of Booth Fisheries Co. v. Industrial Comm. 185 Wis. 127, 200 N. W. 775, and further discussion of the subject is deemed unnecessary. We adhere to the doctrine of that case.

The record has been examined and it contains evidence to sustain the award of the Commission as to total temporary disability and as to the extent of the permanent disability. This court does not disturb an award upon questions of fact if there is any credible evidence to sustain it.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.