Court Opinion

ID: 9865007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:20:21.433863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:36:48.936909
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice Young
dissenting.
I dissent from the opinion of the court for the reason that it does not correctly and fully state the facts as disclosed by the record, and for the further reason that the summary of the effect of the specification of points as set forth in the opinion is so general as to be applicable to the specification of points in any case. It fails completely to disclose the issues raised by the plaintiff in error in this court. The opinion in effect says, and says no more, that the points specified for reversal mean that the plaintiffs in error want a reversal of the judgment because it is wrong. The plaintiffs in error, in their brief, summarize their specifications under two contentions which are as follows:
“1. The District Court has no authority to reverse and set aside an award of the Commission, denying compensation to the claimant, even though all of the evidence of the accident produced in the hearing may come from the claimant, and viewed in its most favorable light, would support an award in his favor, if a reasonable inference from the evidence was that he did *158not sustain an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.
“2. The District Court has no authority to set aside an award of the Commission, and it did not make a finding that the injury received arose out of and in the course of the employment, nor that at the time of the accident the claimant was performing services arising out of and in the course of his employment.”
The sole issue under the first contention of plaintiffs in error is whether inferences contrary to the direct purport of plaintiff’s testimony may reasonably be drawn from the record. Plaintiff is the only person who testified to the circumstances, time and place of his injury. In my opinion, there is no sufficient basis for any such inferences in plaintiff’s testimony, or in his subsequent action or inaction, or in any facts to which other witnesses testified. No testimony, facts or circumstances found in the record are set forth as a basis for inferences that claimant’s statement of the manner in which the accident occurred is not true.
If claimant’s testimony as to the manner and circumstances of his injury — admittedly uncontradicted by other witnesses — is not contradicted or so weakened by permissible contrary inferences as to make his direct testimony unworthy of credit, then the district court was right in holding that there was evidence to support his claim and none to the contrary, thus necessitating a finding of a compensable accident as a matter of law.
As to the second point specified for reversal, the findings of the district court are not as full as might be desired, but it is clear from the specific direction contained in its judgment, that the commission find the amount of compensation to which claimant was entitled under the law, that the district court in fact found that there was no evidence or permissible inference negativing the direct purport of claimant’s testimony that he sustained a compensable injury.
*159In my opinion, the commission was given proper direction by the district court and the judgment should be affirmed.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Knous concurs in this dissenting opinion.