Court Opinion

ID: 9725777
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:09:51.555857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:19.674098
License: Public Domain

Broadeoot, J.
(dissenting). I am unable to agree with the decision of the majority of the court in this case. A study of the record leaves a grave doubt in my mind that claimant’s neurosis was a result of his earlier injury. If the commission entertained the same doubt then it was its duty to deny the additional compensation requested. That rule has often been expressed by this court. In Beem v. Industrial Comm. 244 Wis. 334, 337, 12 N. W. (2d) 42, it was stated as follows:
“ ‘If the evidence before the commission was such as to raise in the minds of the commission a legitimate doubt as to the existence of facts essential to compensation, it would be the duty of the commission to deny compensation, on the ground that the applicant did not sustain the burden of proving to the satisfaction of the commission that the facts were as he claimed them to be.’ Winter v. Industrial Comm. 205 Wis. 246, 250, 237 N. W. 106; Rutta v. Industrial Comm. 216 Wis. 238, 257 N. W. 15; Hills Dry Goods Co. v. Industrial Comm. 217 Wis. 76, 258 N. W. 336; Milwaukee E. R. & L. Co. v. Industrial Comm. 222 Wis. 111, 267 N. W. 62; Bowen v. Industrial Comm. 239 Wis. 306, 1 N. W. (2d) 77.”
The same rule has been cited with approval in Molinaro v. Industrial Comm. 273 Wis. 129, 76 N. W. (2d) 547, and Johnston v. Industrial Comm. 3 Wis. (2d) 173, 87 N. W. (2d) 822.