Court Opinion

ID: 9535207
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:46:46.339115+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:11.480236
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
Mr. Justice Moore:
The petition for rehearing filed in this cause refers to the court’s opinion where it is stated “an award of the Industrial Commission requires support by competent evidence.” The petition goes on to assert that our opinion “expressly disapproves prior decisions upon which respondents relied in introducing the evidence which this Court now holds to be incompetent.”
It is contended that we should remand the case to the commission for further hearing, in order that respond*466ents may be given the opportunity to present competent evidence to replace the hearsay statement allegedly signed by Isaiah Hayes, as shown in the record.
We direct attention to the exhaustive article appearing in Dicta for the month of November 1954, under the title “The Admissibility of Hearsay in Hearings Before Workmen’s Compensation Commissions.” This article points up the fact that in most all jurisdictions where there is a statute comparable to our own, stating in substance that the commission shall not be bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence, a uniform interpretation thereof has been given. It is generally held to mean “that while the commission’s inquiry is not limited by the common law or statutory rules of evidence or by technical or formal rules of procedure, and it may, in its discretion, accept any evidence that is offered, still in the end there must be a residium of legal evidence to support the claim before an award can be made.” The following authorities fully demonstrate that our opinion in this case is amply supported by the law as well established prior to our decision: Carrol v. Knickerbocker Ice Company, 218 N.Y. 435, 117 N.E. 507; Olson-Hall v. Industrial Commission, 71 Colo. 228, 205 Pac. 527; Public Service Company v. Industrial Commission, 89 Colo. 440, 3 P. (2d) 799. From Attschuller v. Bressler, 289 N. Y. 463, 46 N.E. (2d) 886, we quote:
“The court has never required that such residium should independently of the hearsay establish the accident. The sufficiency of the residium of legal evidence cannot be measured by the mechanical formula. There must be evidence setting forth facts of a probative character outside of hearsay statements to prove the award and show it is fair and just.”
The petition for rehearing is denied.