Case ID: utah_101/html/0443-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WOLFE, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SILCOX v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
    No. 6388.
    Decided May 5, 1942.
    (125 P. 2d 428.)
    See 28 R. C. L., 818 (8 Perm. Supp. 6241) ; 71 C. J. Workmen’s •Compensation, sec. 929.
    
      Barclay & Barclay, of Salt Lake City, for plaintiff.
    
      Grover A. Giles, Atty. Gen., Zar E. Hayes, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Cheney, Jensen, Marr & Wilkins, of Salt Lake City, for defendants.
   WOLFE, Justice.

A majority of the court think that the testimony of the ■doctors, if it is not to be interpreted as altogether in agreement as to the arthritic condition being the cause of the disability, at least introduces a conflict in that regard and even though it be admitted that witihout the doctors’ testimony and the X-rays showing the arthritiic condition, the only conclusion justifiable would have been that the applicant suffered an accidental injury which was compensable. In this case two questions arise: Was there a sprain? If so, did it cause the continued disability? Certain doctors testified that the arthritic condition did not preclude the existence of a sprain but there is medical testimony that even though there was a sprain the disability of applicant is attributable only to the hypertrophic osteoarthritis.

The petition for a rehearing is denied.

LARSON and McDONOUGH, JJ., concur.

MOFFAT, C. J., dissents.

PRATT, J., not participating.