Opinion ID: 1280745
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tamara Austers.

Text: The court is thus presented with the question of whether the above analysis reveals inherent inconsistencies in the testimony of Elsie Reich, and if so whether these inherent inconsistencies warrant the commission's entertainment of a legitimate doubt as to whether the alleged incidents of November 13 and 19, 1964, did in fact take placeor put another way, whether the finding of the commission (based on the above inconsistencies) that the incidents are only alleged to have happened is so unreasonable that it is not entitled to any weight. However, the above analysis, which focuses entirely upon the testimony and statements of the applicant must be considered in light of the uncontroverted eyewitness testimony of Tamara Austers. Q. And on November 19, 1964, did you see Mrs. Elsie Reich at work? A. Yes, I did. Q. And will you describe what you saw on that day? A. You mean the moment when it happened? Q. Yes. A. I was standing at my table with my back to the corner of the part where the pans are and suddenly I heard a dropping of pans. Automatically I turned around and I saw Mrs. Reich standing, bending over pans all over the floor, and she said to me, `Oh, my back, my back.' The Examiner: Q. Slow down. You heard dropping of pans and turned around and saw A. And I saw Mrs. Reich bending over. Q. Bending over pans scattered on the floor? A. Yes, and she said to me, `Oh, my back, my back.' Mr. Gillick: Q. Who picked up the pans? A. I picked up the pans. I helped her straighten out. I gave her the pans in the hands and she slowly went back. Q. Went back to her regular work or wherever she went? A. Yes. Mr. Gillick: I guess that's all. Cross-examination by Mr. Richardson: Q. Now, as I understand your testimony, Mrs. Austers, you heard the pans drop; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And then your first time you had seen Mrs. Reich was when she was bending over picking up the pans? A. Yes. She wasn't picking up the pans. The pans was on the floor and she was standing this way (demonstrating). Q. Bent over from the waist? A. Bent over, yes. Q. And you picked up the pans or helped her? A. No, I picked the pans up myself. Q. But you gave them back to her? A. Yes. Q. And she carried them from there? A. Yes. Q. How heavy were the pans? A. Maybe 20 pounds. Maybe more. Q. Did you report this to anybody at work? A. No, I didn't know that it was so serious. I laughed about it. Q. You said you didn't know it was serious, you laughed about it? A. In our workyou hurt yourself. I didn't know. Appellant presents two arguments in support of the commission. First, it is argued that because of the inherent inconsistencies in the testimony of the applicant, the commission could properly disregard the testimony of Tamara Austers. The theory seems to be that the alleged inherent inconsistencies in applicant's testimony not only impeach the credibility of the applicant but also impeach the credibility of Tamara Austers. In Richardson v. Industrial Comm . [15] this court was faced with a fact situation involving uncontroverted testimony of a witness. Commenting upon this testimony the court noted that: No part of Richardson's testimony was brought into doubt by that of other witnesses; his was the only testimony in the record. [16] However, it appears that this case can be distinguished from the one presently under consideration in that arguably Tamara's testimony was brought into doubt by the alleged inherent inconsistencies in the testimony of the applicant who testified to the same event. The appellant relies on Fitz v. Industrial Comm . [17] as authority for the commission to disregard the eyewitness testimony. In that case the court upheld the right of the commission to rely on evidence of the attending physician that claimant's accident caused only slight injury to his right leg without subcutaneous bleeding and discoloration as against the testimony of seven witnesses, including relatives and co-workers, that claimant's legs were black, blue, green, and other colors shortly after the accident. However, in that case the commission was weighing the expert opinion of a physician against the testimony of lay witnesses. Also the court noted [18] that the testimony of the fellow employees was not consistent. In the present case it is not argued that the testimony of the applicant and the eyewitness conflict. In fact, both testify that the November 19, 1964 pan incident took place. Rather it is argued that inconsistencies in applicant's testimony cast doubt on the credibility of both the applicant and the eyewitness. Also, unlike the Fitz Case, the facts testified to are not of a medical nature. It appears that the thrust of appellant's argument is that if there are inherent inconsistencies in applicant's testimony as to a particular fact which permit the commission to disregard the testimony of applicant as to the existence of that factthen the commission is justified in disregarding uncontroverted eyewitness testimony of other witnesses as to the existence of that fact. But this would appear to be so only where credible evidence in the record would permit the commission to conclude that inconsistencies in the applicant's testimony cast doubt directly on the credibility of the eyewitness. Such credible evidence is lacking in this record. A finding by the commission that the alleged inherent inconsistencies in Mrs. Reich's testimony cast a legitimate doubt on the credibility of Tamara Austers' testimony as to what she observed on November 19, 1964, is unreasonable and not entitled to any weight. What Tamara Austers saw on November 19, 1964, was not affected by testimony and statements of the applicant after that date. Appellant's second argument in support of the commission's apparent disregard of this uncontradicted testimony is that even if Tamara Austers' testimony is true with respect to what she saw, the commission was justified in concluding that the applicant was playacting. However, such a conclusion would be justified only if there were credible evidence in the record to support such a conclusion. As the trial court pointed out in its very able, painstaking analysis of the record: If she was capable of planning such a scheming play, she surely would have remembered it when she first talked to her doctor and to every other person she talked to. There appears to be no basis in the record for such a conclusion by the commission.