Court Opinion

ID: 9864817
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:12:55.075555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:32:04.975414
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Stone
dissenting.
I am unable to concur in the court’s opinion in this case. Claimant had a defect in the vision which was correctable by glasses and was not caused by the injury. He had a skull fracture with resulting loss of smell which was caused by the injury and constituted two and one half percent disability. He had headaches and blurring of vision which Dr. Bluemel testified might well have been caused by the injury and constituted another two and one half percent disability. Dr. Bluemel further *188testified that, “ * * * if he were free from headaches to the time he was hurt, and had headaches after, then I should think the headache was caused by the head injury.” Unfortunately claimant was not represented by an- attorney at law and the essential facts do not appear with satisfactory clarity. Further, part of the evidence with relation to the origin of the headaches and blurring of vision was submitted at the first hearing before the referee at Steamboat Springs and that evidence for some unexplained reason is not included in the record certified here, but we believe that Dr. Bluemel’s testimony above referred to, together with claimant’s testimony attributing the headaches to the accident, is sufficient to make a prima facie case as to the headaches and blurring of vision and support the findings of the referee, the commission and the district court. The sufficiency of the evidence is the only matter here urged.
At the time of the hearing the referee of the commission gave respondent fifteen days within which to elect whether or not it would voluntarily furnish claimant with glasses in an effort to determine whether the headaches and blurring of vision might not have been caused by preexisting defect in vision and, notwithstanding such time given, the referee six days later (on December 19, 1944) entered the award of five percent total disability. Had respondent asked that the case be continued for the necessary time in which to procure glasses and demonstrate their effectiveness then, upon refusal of such continuance and proper showing here, that issue might be considered. However, respondent does not raise the issue here. Accordingly, the question as to premature entry of award for permanent disability is not here involved.
Mr. Justice Knous and Mr. Justice Hilliard join in this dissenting opinion.