Court Opinion

ID: 9850078
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:51:54.213517+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:31.460607
License: Public Domain

NEIGHBORS, Justice,
specially concurring:
I concur in the majority’s conclusion that the case be remanded to the referee for the purpose of clarifying the findings and to make additional findings, if necessary or appropriate. However, I disagree with the *479majority’s analysis of the issues of eviden-tiary versus ultimate fact and cause versus proximate cause. In my view, the court should make a determination that causation is either an evidentiary or an ultimate fact. The court’s conclusion that “causation may in certain circumstances be an ultimate fact and in others an evidentiary fact,” at 477, does little to resolve this troublesome issue and provides claimants, insurance carriers, the bench, and the bar with no meaningful guidance to govern future cases. Moreover, the distinction drawn by the majority between “caused” (evidentiary fact) and “proximately caused” (ultimate fact) is a difference which only serves to add further uncertainty to an already confusing area of the law.
Our decision in Lee v. State Board of Dental Examiners, 654 P.2d 839 (Colo.1982), provides adequate guidelines for determining whether causation is an eviden-tiary or an ultimate fact. In Lee, we defined evidentiary facts as those which “are the detailed factual or historical findings upon which the legal determination of the board rests.” Lee, 654 P.2d at 843. We stated: “Findings of ultimate fact, as distinguished from raw evidentiary fact, involve a conclusion of law, or at least a determination of a mixed question' of law and fact, and settle the rights and liabilities of the parties.” Id. at 844.
Evidentiary facts are those facts which are necessary to a determination of the ultimate facts. Ultimate facts are the conclusions drawn from the evidentiary facts. Tague v. Coors Porcelain Co., 29 Colo.App. 226, 481 P.2d 424 (1971). Evidentiary facts are based on the evidence presented at the hearing. Ultimate facts are conclusions acquired through reflection and reasoning based upon the evidentiary facts and are necessary in order that a determination of the rights of the parties can become a question of law. See Voorhees-Jontz Lumber Co. v. Bezek, 137 Ind.App. 382, 209 N.E.2d 380 (1965); Jacobson v. Trim-Slide, Inc., 37 Misc.2d 737, 234 N.Y. S.2d 780 (N.Y.Sup.1962).
In order to recover under section 8-52-102(l)(c), 3 C.R.S. (1973 & 1983 Supp.), a claimant must establish that: (1) the injury or death, (2) was proximately caused, (3) by an injury or occupational disease arising out of and in the course of his employment, and (4) was not intentionally self-inflicted. In applying the principles defining the distinction between evidentiary and ultimate facts to the Act, I am persuaded that the element of causation or “proximately caused” is necessarily an ultimate conclusion of fact. See Borovich v. Colt Industries, 492 Pa. 372, 424 A.2d 1237, 1240 (1981) (“appellant properly asserted the va-cua in the original findings of the Referee, which would justify an ultimate finding that the emphysema was not causally connected to the employment under the provisions of section 108(n).” (Emphasis added.)) I view the distinction between the words “cause” and “proximate cause” as being only semantic in nature. Since the claimant’s right to recover benefits under the Act is dependent upon a determination that the disability was “proximately caused” by an industrial injury or occupational disease, that conclusion is an ultimate fact. See Goranson v. Department of Industry, 94 Wis.2d 537, 289 N.W.2d 270 (1980).
The legislative history outlined in the majority’s opinion leads me to believe that the General Assembly sought to achieve two goals by the amendments to section 8-53-106(2), 3 C.R.S. (1973), described in the majority opinion. First, the legislature intended that the commission’s authority to reverse referees’ findings of evidentiary fact be drastically curtailed. The referee’s evidentiary findings may not be set aside by the commission unless they are contrary to the weight of the evidence. Second, the legislature granted the commission the power to make independent ultimate conclusions of fact. Thus, there will be uniform decisions made by the commission concerning issues of causation which arise under similar fact patterns. This legislative purpose is particularly important in claims involving occupational diseases. If causation is limited to the status of an evidentiary fact in any case, then whether similarly situated claimants recover benefits under the Act is wholly dependent upon the referee to whom the case is as*480signed. This result is inconsistent with the purposes of the Act.
I recognize that a referee can make findings of evidentiary facts that would, as a matter of law, dictate the ultimate conclusions of fact which the commission would be required to make. I also recognize that the “either/or” approach which I have advocated is mechanical, lacks flexibility, and may lead to an unfair result in some eases. However, I believe the purposes of the Act and the administration of justice are served far better by adopting a clear and precise rule than by engaging in a case-by-case approach which will involve endless appellate litigation over the elusive concepts of evidentiary facts, ultimate facts, cause, direct cause, legal cause, and proximate cause.
I am authorized to say that Justice RO-VIRA joins in the special concurrence.