Court Opinion

ID: 9791797
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:18:17.140853+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:38.637726
License: Public Domain

Schroeder, J.,
dissenting: The trial courts finding No. 4 — that claimant had abandoned his trip to the doctor’s office and had deviated from said trip by going to his son’s service station and a restaurant further removed from the normal route — is supported by substantial competent evidence presented in the record.
*141A rule to which this court purports to adhere consistently is that on appellate review in a workmen s compensation case the Supreme Court will not reweigh the evidence and make findings contrary to those of the district court, where the findings made are supported by substantial competent evidence.
Furthermore, the rules applied in reviewing a workmens compensation case which has been determined in favor of a workman should also be applied where a decision has been made in favor of the employer. Thus, in Schafer v. Kansas Soya Products Co., 187 Kan. 590, 358 P. 2d 737, it was said:
“Notwithstanding the fact this court is committed to the rule of liberal construction of the workmen’s compensation act in order to award compensation to an injured workman in cases where it is reasonably possible to do so within the provisions of the act, consistency of decisions involving interpretation of the act cannot be maintained by construing it liberally in favor of compensation where the workman seeks compensation and strictly against compensation when he seeks damages. In other words, the same rule must govern a given set of facts whether invoked by an employer or an employee. (Bright v. Bragg, supra [175 Kan. 404, 264 P. 2d 494]; and Shuck v. Hendershot, 185 Kan. 673, 347 P. 2d 362.)” (p.595.)
Simply stated, this means an employer is entitled to the benefits of a favorable finding which, in effect, denies a workman compensation, just as a workman would be entitled to the benefits of a favorable finding which, in effect, awards him compensation.
In my opinion the decision is controlled by Madison v. Key Work Clothes, 182 Kan. 186, 318 P. 2d 991, and cases cited therein. The case most nearly in point on the facts here presented, where a workman deviated from the normal route of his employment, is Bell v. Allison Drilling Co., 175 Kan. 441, 264 P. 2d 1069. But there it must be noted the finding of the trial court was in favor of the claimant. Analysis of other cases relied upon by the court will disclose that the factual situations there presented readily distinguish them from the case at bar.
It is respectfully submitted the judgment of the trial court denying compensation should be affirmed.