Court Opinion

ID: 9559462
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:29:50.731567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:09.432163
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Justice
(concurring):
I think it appropriate to point out that since the enactment of Sec. 35-1-84 and 85, U.C.A.1953, as part of our original Workmen’s Compensation Act, Sec. 87 of Chap. 100, S.L.U.1917, there have been many adjudications upon that statute. They explain that the provision that the findings of fact shall not be subject to review is subject to the proposition that they must be supported by substantial evidence, or as otherwise sometimes stated, there must be a reasonable basis in the evidence to support them. Otherwise, the recital of purported findings of fact, not being on a sound foundation, are not valid as findings of fact; and the issue is ruled upon as a matter of law. For a lucid exposition of this principle see Norris v. Industrial Commission, 90 Utah 256, 61 P.2d 413 by Justice Wolfe; for other examples see also Continental Casualty Co. v. Industrial Commission, 75 Utah 220, 284 P. 313; Kavalinakis v. Industrial Commission, 67 Utah 174, 246 P. 698; Moray v. Industrial Commission, 58 Utah 404, 199 P. 1023.
WILKINS, J., having disqualified himself, does not participate herein.