Court Opinion

ID: 9581890
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:20:09.837397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:19.291273
License: Public Domain

HUNTLEY, Justice,
dissenting.
I fully concur in the dissent of Justice Bistline and would make three additional comments:
(1) The Bar and the Industrial Commission should note that the majority opinion of today does not at any point reverse, repeal, revise or modify the law of the three-justice majority of Vernon I on the issue of how the Commission is to construe the statutory requirement that the accident be reasonably located as to time and place.
(2) Today’s majority opinion stands for only one proposition — Mrs. Vernon is not to be compensated because three justices and three commissioners misread what the words of Justice Donaldson’s remand meant.
When I voted with him in his use of the following words, "... make more detailed factual findings and conclusions of law to support its ultimate holding,” such was in the context, not of reentering the same ultimate holding, but rather we had pointed out that the Commissioner’s “then holding” was not supported by its findings from the record. At no point did Justice Donaldson dictate what the “ultimate holding” should be and I must respectfully say that it is just plain wrong for this Court to approve the Commission’s misunderstanding and misimplementation of its duty.
Totally ignored by Justice Bakes from Justice Donaldson’s Vernon I is the following:
In the instant case, the commission did not explain the rule of law under which they were operating. They merely stated that the claimant did not meet her burden of proof.
We cannot ascertain whether the commission simply did not believe the testimony of the claimant’s doctors or her own testimony, or placed a greater weight on the conflicting evidence, or believed the claimant’s testimony, but applied a rule of law to reach its determination. It is not our function to guess the reasoning of the commission. We cannot determine that the commission acted properly, or improperly, in reaching its conclusion. Thus, we must vacate its decision and remand to clarify its rationale. With our restrained review of the commission’s factual findings, it becomes essential that the conclusions of law not be shrouded in ambiguity.
(3)Thank you, Mrs. Vernon, for having provided an opportunity for clarification of the law via Vernon I — my apologies for the circumstances which have followed to deprive you of the compensation which you earned by your labor.