Court Opinion

ID: 9673757
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:17:52.530373+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:23.948028
License: Public Domain

McCown, J.,
dissenting.
Only factual issues are involved here. Both the Workmen’s Compensation Court en banc and the District Court, on appeal, determined those factual issues in favor of the claimant, and there is reasonable competent evidence in the record to support those findings of fact. The majority opinion disregards the only medical testimony as to causation which was that the injury was, in fact, caused by the employment, and also fails to give the claimant the benefit of all reasonable inferences and conclusions which may be drawn from the evidence as to the time and place of occurrence of the “injury.” The opinion ignores the rule set out by this court in Gifford v. Ag Lime, Sand & Gravel Co., 187 Neb. 57, 187 N. W. 2d 285. “On appeal of a workmen’s compensation case to the Supreme Court, if there is reasonable competent evidence to support the findings of fact in the trial court, the judgment, order, or award will not be modified or set aside for insufficiency of the evidence. * * * Upon appellate review of a workmen’s compensation case in the Supreme Court, the cause will be considered de novo only where the findings of fact are not supported by the evidence as disclosed by the record.”
In a workmen’s compensation case, as well as in many other situations to which the rule applies, a successful claimant is entitled to have the evidence considered in the light most favorable to him and to have the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can be rea*162sonably deduced from the evidence. The claimant here was denied the benefit of that rule, and this court has now reviewed the fact de novo without reference to the factual findings of the Workmen’s Compensation Court and the District Court. This case should be affirmed.