Court Opinion

ID: 9536899
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:09:12.630566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:29.487195
License: Public Domain

ELLETT, Justice.
Plaintiffs’ decedent, while in the course of his employment, fell and sustained a basal skull fracture. He claimed the fall was occasioned by his being overcome by lacquer fumes. The defendants allowed and paid compensation insurance until his death. Some seven months after his fall the decedent developed an irregularity in his heart beat and had a pacemaker surgically implanted in his body. He was released from the hospital and died the next day.
The plaintiffs, the widow and children of the decedent, filed an application for death benefits and brought the matter before this court when the Industrial Com- ' mission denied their claim. The sole question involved before the Commission was whether decedent’s death was caused in whole or in part by the inhalation of lacquer fumes and the fall or either of them.
A medical panel was appointed consisting of three doctors, and a report was submitted by the panel to the Industrial Commission. The plaintiffs objected to the report, and a hearing was held at which Dr. Kilpatrick, a member of the panel, testified as follows:
Q As I understand your testimony, Doctor — just to review for a little bit here — it’s your opinion that there is no connection between lacquer exposure and the type of heart disease that the deceased had in this instance; is that correct?
A That’s true.
Q And is it also your opinion that there is no connection between the fall, the type of fall that Mr. McWilliams had, and the resulting problems of his heart ?
A That’s true.
Q And it is also your opinion today, Doctor, that the combination of both the lacquer paint and the fall would not contribute to the heart disease as you found it in the deceased; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.1
Thereafter an amended objection was filed by plaintiffs wherein they objected to the entire panel because Dr. Viko, the chairman of the panel, had during decedent’s lifetime examined him at the instance of the State Insurance Fund. Plaintiffs claimed that the panel was. not impartial; whereupon the Industrial Commission appointed a second panel of five doctors. This panel made its report, and again the' plaintiffs objected thereto: The chairman. *268of the panel, Dr. Orme, appeared at the hearing, and the following proceedings occurred :
Q Doctor, in regards to the Panel Report, are the findings, opinions and conclusions reached therein — that would [be] -pages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 — your present .opinion, conclusions and findings as to the circumstances surrounding the demise of Mr. McWilliams?
.A Yes, sir.
. MR. MOORE: I have nothing further at this time.
MR. BLACK: I have no questions.
This second report was then received in evidence and was before the Commission for its consideration pursuant to Section 35-1-77, U.C.A.1953.2
Whether the first report should be considered as evidence is of no importance because the testimony of Dr. Kilpatrick was in the record and was before the Commission. That testimony alone was sufficient to sustain the Commission as made.
Section 35-1-85, U.C.A.1953, reads: “ * * * The findings and conclusions of the commission on questions of fact shall be conclusive and final and shall not be subject to review; * *
The plaintiffs rely upon the testimony given by way of depositions of two doctors from out of state. It is within the prerogative of the Industrial Commission to believe the testimony of the defend-ánts’ doctors in preference to that of the plaintiffs’ physician and surgeon, and especially is this true when neither of the plaintiffs’ witnesses had any particular, training in the matter of heart diseases, one being an orthopedic surgeon, the other a general practitioner, and neither of whom knew the decedent. The Industrial Commission had appointed specialists to the panels as follows: The original panel had three doctors all of whom were specialists in the treatment of heart diseases. The second panel consisted of three specialists in heart and cardiovascular diseases, one in neurology and electroencephalography, and the fifth one in internal medicine.
Since all eight of these expert witnesses were of the opinion that the death of the decedent was not related to any inhalation of fumes or to a fall caused thereby, it cannot be said that the Industrial Commission acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Under the law it is our duty to sustain the order as made. The complaint of the plaintiffs is, therefore, dismissed. No costs are awarded.
CROCKETT, C. J., and HENRIOD, J.,’ concur.

. The plaintiffs made no objection to this testimony.

. Section. 35-1-77, U.O.A.1953, provides that the panel report is not to be considered as evidence when an objection is made thereto except insofar as it is sustained by testimony admitted.