Case Name: Smith v. Pike County Coal Company
Court: Appellate Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1923-10-02
Citations: 80 Ind. App. 330
Docket Number: No. 11,686
Parties: Smith v. Pike County Coal Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 80
Pages: 330–331

Head Matter:
Smith v. Pike County Coal Company.
[No. 11,686.
Filed October 2, 1923.]
Master and Servant.— Workmen’s Compensation Act.— Evidence.—Sufficiency.—Question of Fact.—Findings.—Under §45 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (§8020c2 Burns’ Supp. 1921, Acts 1919 p. 167) the question whether there had been a recurrence of disability, held a question of fact for the Industrial Board, and when sustained by the evidence the finding will be affirmed.
From the Industrial Board of Indiana.
Proceeding for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act by John M. Smith against the Pike County Coal Company. From an award of the Industrial Board denying compensation on account of changed conditions, the applicant appeals.
Affirmed.
John A. Riddle, for appellant.
Will H. Hays, Hinkle C. Hays, Alonzo C. Owens, W. Paul Stratton, John S. Taylor, William H. Bridwell and G. W. Buff, for appellee.

Opinion:
Remy, J.
On December 23, 1920, appellant received an injury while in the employ of appellee, and on July 19, 1921, was awarded compensation by the Industrial Board. On November 1, 1921, appellee filed application, under §45 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Acts 1919 p. 167, §8020c2 Burns' Supp. 1921), for a review of the award on account of changed conditions. At a hearing, the board found that appellant's disability had terminated October 30, 1921, and made an order accordingly. On September 22, 1922, appellant, claiming that there had been a recurrence of his disability since the previous finding of the board, made application for a review on account of changed conditions. A hearing, February 21, 1923, resulted in a finding for appellee. From the board's order denying appellant's application this appeal is prosecuted. The only question involved is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding. Whether there had been a recurrence of appellant's disability was a question of fact for the Industrial Board. The evidence sustains the finding.
Affirmed.