Case Name: O. P. LAUDERDALE, Petitioner, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Defendant Insurance Carrier, L. C. HOLMES, SAM PROCTOR and LYNN LOCKHART, as Members of The Industrial Commission of Arizona, and BARRETT & HILP AND MACCO CORPORATION, Defendant Employer, Respondents
Court: Arizona Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arizona
Decision Date: 1941-07-16
Citations: 57 Ariz. 520
Docket Number: Civil No. 4305
Parties: O. P. LAUDERDALE, Petitioner, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Defendant Insurance Carrier, L. C. HOLMES, SAM PROCTOR and LYNN LOCKHART, as Members of The Industrial Commission of Arizona, and BARRETT & HILP AND MACCO CORPORATION, Defendant Employer, Respondents.
Judges: McALISTER and ROSS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Arizona Reports
Volume: 57
Pages: 520–521

Head Matter:
[Civil No. 4305.
Filed July 16, 1941.]
[115 Pac. (2d) 249.]
O. P. LAUDERDALE, Petitioner, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Defendant Insurance Carrier, L. C. HOLMES, SAM PROCTOR and LYNN LOCKHART, as Members of The Industrial Commission of Arizona, and BARRETT & HILP AND MACCO CORPORATION, Defendant Employer, Respondents.
Mr. Burt H. Clingan, for Petitioner.
Mr. Eouland W. Hill and Mr. Howard A. Twitty, for Eespondents.

Opinion:
LOCKWOOD, C. J.
O. P. Lauderdale, petitioner, has brought before us by the usual certiorari the award of the Industrial Commission of Arizona, called the commission, denying him compensation for alleged injuries received as the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.
Petitioner, in his brief, states frankly that the only issue before us is whether the commission acted without and in excess of its jurisdiction in finding that the evidence was insufficient to establish that his admitted disability was proximately the result of an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.
Petitioner has been examined at various times since his accident by eighteen different physicians. Of these, five testified that in their opinion his condition was probably the result of the accident which it is admitted he suffered, eleven stated that in their opinion it was not, while two were noncommittal.
The question was one which must be determined on expert medical testimony. Following our long and unbroken line of decisions, we cannot set aside an award of the commission based on conflicting evidence of this nature.
The award is affirmed.
McALISTER and ROSS, JJ., concur.