Court Opinion

ID: 9526849
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:25:10.808748+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:08.327253
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Faulconer, J.
— I cannot concur in a reversal of this award under the facts of this case and the law concerning reviews by this court of awards by the Industrial Board.
*565As stated in Moore v. L. O. Gates Chevrolet, Inc. (1967), 140 Ind. App. 672, 225 N. E. 2d 854, 855, 856, 10 Ind. Dec. 373 (transfer denied), the award of the Board cannot be set aside unless all the evidence is undisputed and not contradicted and leads inescapably to the sole conclusion that the appellant was entitled to an award under our Workman’s Compensation Act.
Whether the accident arose out of and in the course of decedent’s employment with appellee was an issue within the province and the duty of the Board to decide. The Board’s conclusion, if sustained by competent evidence of probative value or legitimate inferences therefrom, will not be disturbed by this court on appeal. Moore v. L. O. Gates Chevrolet, Inc., supra.
The evidence in the present case concerning the vital issue of whether appellant’s decedent was within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred is conflicting. Although we may draw different conclusions or inferences from the evidence than did the Board, our duty is not to substitute our judgment for that of the Board.
In my opinion we cannot state that reasonable men could only conclude, from the evidence in this case and the permissible inferences therefrom, that appellant’s decedent was acting within the scope of his employment and that the accident arose out of said employment.
Therefore the award should be affirmed.
Carson, C. J., concurs.
Note. — Reported in 236 N. E. 2d 508. Transfer denied with opinion 243 N. E. 2d 378.