Court Opinion

ID: 9865018
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:20:44.807016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:36:51.055644
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Goudy
dissenting.
It seems to me that the basic questions here are those of fact. The Industrial Commission considered the evidence and concluded that the employment offered was suitable. The majority opinion and the specially concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Knous seem to me to be based upon a review of the facts and a conclusion drawn therefrom by the majority which differs from that of the commission. The result reached by the majority also was the judgment of the district court. In view of our long line of decisions, refusing to invade the field of the fact-finding body, this judgment, in my opinion, should be reversed. We said in Regal Coal Co. v. Jackvich, 105 Colo. 479, 99 P. (2d) 196: “If the testimony * * * was such that honest men fairly considering it might arrive at contrary conclusions then an issue of fact was thereby presented and the finding of the commission on that issue was binding on the district court in its subsequent hearing of the case, and binds us on review.” This doctrine was reiterated in Industrial Commission v. Day, 107 Colo. 332, 111 P. (2d) 1061, and should not now be repudiated. I therefore dissent.
Mr. Justice Burke and Mr. Justice Jackson concur in this dissenting opinion.