Case Title: Ippolito v. Katz Drug Co.

Citation: 199 Kan. 309, 429 P.2d 101

Docket Number: 44,933

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1967-06-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
199 Kan. 309 (1967)
429 P.2d 101
MARY WANETA IPPOLITO, Appellant,
v.
KATZ DRUG COMPANY, INC. and PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellees.
No. 44,933

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed June 10, 1967.
John E. Bohannon, of Topeka, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant.
Herbert A. Marshall, of Topeka, argued the cause, and Doral H. Hawks, E. Gene McKinney and Wayne E. Hundley, of Topeka, were with him on the briefs for appellees.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
FATZER, J.:
In this workmen's compensation case the examiner and the director of workmen's compensation found that on May 23, 1962, the claimant met with personal injury by accident when she went to the storeroom of the respondent's Topeka store to secure coke syrup to put into the coke machine at the fountain, and suffered a sharp pain in her back when she reached down and picked up the carton and commenced to lift it, which arose out of and in the course of her employment with respondent, and was compensable. Upon appeal and review of the record, the district court made findings of fact and conclusions of law denying compensation, as follows:
"FINDINGS OF FACT
"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The sole question presented for appellate review is whether there was substantial evidence to support the district court's finding that the claimant did not sustain accidental compensable personal injury on May 23, 1962.
Whether the disability of a workman is due to an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment is a question of fact and when determined by the district court will not be disturbed by this court, where there is substantial evidence to sustain it. (Kafka v. Edwards, 182 Kan. 568, 322 P.2d 785; Allen v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 184 Kan. 184, 334 P.2d 370.) In Heer v. Hankamer Excavating Co., 184 Kan. 186, it was said:
Does the record disclose substantial evidence to sustain the factual findings of the district court? As in all cases of this character, that is the decisive question. It would serve no useful purpose to extend this opinion by making an extensive review of the evidence of the parties. It is sufficient to say there was evidence on the part of the claimant which, if believed by the district court, would warrant an award of compensation, but upon a careful review of the record we are of the opinion there was substantial evidence to sustain the district court's findings the claimant did not sustain accidental compensable injury on May 23, 1962. In Allen v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., supra, it was said:
See, also, Jones v. City of Dodge City, 194 Kan. 777, 402 P.2d 108.
Although this court may feel the weight of the evidence, as a whole, is against the findings of fact so made, it may not disturb those findings when they are supported by substantial evidence. Considering the evidence and all the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion the record discloses substantial evidence to support the findings and judgment of the district court denying an award of compensation, and that judgment is affirmed.