Case Title: Industrial Commission of Colorado v. Klaczkowski

Citation: 360 P.2d 104

Docket Number: 

State: colorado

Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Date: 1961-03-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
360 P.2d 104 (1961) INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF COLORADO; Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati, Ohio; and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, a Corporation, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Petronella KLACZKOWSKI, Defendant in Error. No. 19326. Supreme Court of Colorado, In Department. March 13, 1961. McComb, Zarlengo & Mott, Denver, for plaintiffs in error Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati, Ohio and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Peter L. Dye, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff in error Industrial Commission of Colorado. Louis J. Stuart, Pueblo, for defendant in error. HALL, Chief Justice. On September 3, 1957, the defendant in error, herein referred to as claimant, filed her claim for compensation for injuries to her back claimed to have been suffered on July 2, 1957, while employed as a dishwasher at St. Mary's-Corwin Hospital in Pueblo, operated by the Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati, Ohio. She claims her injuries were incurred as the result of an accident arising out of and during the course of her employment when she undertook to lift a heavy tray. Several hearings were had before a referee of the Industrial Commission, at the close of which the referee made findings of fact and entered an order denying compensation. The pertinent portions of the findings are as follows: "The Referee finds from the evidence that at the time claimant came to work on July 2, 1957, she complained to her fellow employee and supervisor that her back hurt. This complaint was made while she was putting on her apron and before she began *105 work. She worked throughout the day until 2:30 P. M. without any complaint and returned for the evening shift about 6:00 P. M., when she made her first complaint about her back accident and told the supervisor she `thought she caught cold from a fan.' She made no complaint of an accident, injury or a fall. The commission entered a final order wherein the finding of the referee was: Claimant thereupon instituted this action in the district court to review denial of her claim by the commission. On November 27, 1959, judgment was entered in favor of the claimant, the court making elaborate findings of fact in direct conflict with the findings of the referee and the commission, and: The commission, the employer and its insurance carrier are here by writ of error challenging the judgment of the trial court and seeking reversal. C.R.S. '53, 81-14-12, provides: The authority of the district court being so limited, it was in error in substituting its own findings of fact for those of the commission. Review of the testimony presented at the hearing before the referee leads inescapably to the conclusion that the findings of fact made by the commission are well supported by competent evidence and are ample to support the award of the commission. In Industrial Commission v. Downing, 108 Colo. 76, 113 P.2d 869, it was held that the Industrial Commission is a fact finding body in every workman's compensation case and its findings, based upon conflicting evidence where such evidence is sufficient to support the findings, are binding upon the courts. Following this established rule in the case of American Mining Co. v. Zupet, 101 Colo. 238, 72 P.2d 281, 282, this court reversed the judgment of the trial court, and in so doing used the following language which is applicable in the case before us: See, also, Zuzich v. Leyden Lignite Co., 120 Colo. 21, 206 P.2d 833, and cases cited therein. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with directions to affirm the award of the Industrial Commission denying compensation. SUTTON and FRANTZ, JJ., concur.