Court Opinion

ID: 9547200
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:43:39.489878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:27.579464
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Justice
(concurring).
I agree with the proposition pointed out by Justice Ellett: that the predicate to compensation is an identifiable accident as distinguished from a gradual development because of the nature or conditions of one’s work. But it is also important to have in mind that it is the exclusive prerogative of the Commission to find the facts; and that it may consider not only all of the direct evidence, and the expert testimony, but may draw such inferences as are reasonably deducible therefrom. The difference between the Pintar case he cites, and others of that character, where the Commission fotmd that the disability was a result of the gradual development, and the instant case, is that here the Commission believed and found that the unusual pain which occurred in Mr. Eskelson’s back on the afternoon in question, which became so severe that he could not continue the work he had theretofore been doing, was such an accident resulting in the course of his employment. While I concede that it appears to be a close case on the facts, in view of the Commission’s prerogative in making the findings, I agree with the main opinion that it does not appear to be so without foundation in the evidence that it should be reversed as capricious and arbitrary.