Court Opinion

ID: 9743168
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:27:05.787827+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:39.709354
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Faulconer, J.
That the exceptions provided in Acts 1929, ch. 172, § 8, p. 536, § 40-1208, Burns’ 1965 Repl., can be waived by the acquiescence of the employer is without question in my opinion.
We are prevented from adopting appellant’s contention of reversible error for two reasons, 1) the nature of the evidence produced on the issue of acquiescence, and 2) that if there is some evidence of substantial probative value to sustain the award we must affirm.
*342Testifying for appellee was Dr. Robert M. May who testified that a blood alcohol test of claimant-appellee after 7:20 A.M. showed a level of 258 mg. per cent which, under the classification of the degree of alcoholic intoxication, placed appellee “in a quite confused state.”
Claimant-appellee admitted, on cross-examination, that he was “drunk” when he came on duty; that he “drank some more while on duty that night”; that appellee was “pretty drunk” that night, so drunk that he (appellee) didn’t believe he “could have used anymore”; and that appellee had a bottle with him in the cab of the scale pit crane. Also, appellee testified, on direct examination, that the pit foreman, John Orwiskwicki, called appellee’s boss, Tom Takis, and they met appellee when he “reached the floor level,” and the roller who was standing there said “I was drunk and had no business running a crane.”
The other evidence produced concerning knowledge of appellee’s .condition by his superior was given by Andy Vasas, Chairman of the Grievance Committee of the billet mills, who stated that he talked to Tom Takis several weeks after he talked to Sam Mills who told him that “Mason had had too much to drink,” and that Sam Mills said, “Andy, I think he [appellee] was too darn drunk to run a crane.”
All of this evidence was unrefuted. It is true that appellant produced a grievance complaint signed by claimant-appellee stating he had not been drinking, however, this merely presented conflicting evidence.
Therefore, from the evidence produced at the hearing, we .cannot state as a matter of law that there is no evidence of probative value to sustain the award, nor can we say such award is contrary to law.
Carson, P.J., concurs.
Note. — Reported in 227 N. E. 2d 694.