Court Opinion

ID: 9684128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:47:27.765255+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:53.073003
License: Public Domain

LEIBSON, Justice,
concurring.
The Court’s majority opinion in this case suggests there was willful failure on the part of the Court of Appeals to follow appropriate procedure, and this conclusion is not justified by the language in the Court of Appeals’ Opinion.
The dispute centers on the appropriate language to express the standard of review in a worker’s compensation appeal. It involves a dispute over semantics. In my view there is little, if any, substantive difference between the standard for review applied in the Court of Appeals, and the standard of review required by the previous decisions of our Court. The real issue in this case is a difference in viewpoint as to the correct inferences to be drawn from the evidence.
While I agree with the Majority Opinion, we should simply reverse the case utilizing our view of correct inferences to be drawn from the evidence. The Court of Appeals’ Opinion does not merit the criticism heaped upon it.