Rule that where two inferences equally consistent with facts arise from evi-
dence, one of which makes employer liable and other which does not,
applicant must fall, applies only where evidence leaves cause of injury
to conjecture, and where evidence warrants reasonable inference that
injury arose out of employment, commission's finding to that effect is
final. Paton v. Port Huron Engine & Thresher Co. (Mich.).
Commission's decision is final as to all questions of fact. Mullen v.. Mitchell
(Okla.)

Reviewing court wil: examine evidence only to ascetain whether there is sub-
stantial evidence in support of findings and whether it has acted with-
out or in excess of its jurisdiction. Twin Peaks Canning Co. v. Indust.
Comm. (Utah.)
Where evidence is sufficient, if true, to sustain commissioner's findings of
fact, his decision thereon is final. MacDonald's Case (Me.).
Finding of accident board that injury to employee did not render his hand
permanently incapable of use, being supported by evidence, was final.
Jakutis' Case (Mass.)

94

129

176

79

80

83

Findings of fact made by board acting within its powers, in absence of
fraud, are conclusive. Brown v. Long Mfg. Co. (Mich.)
Findings of commission supported by substantial evidence will not be dis-
turbed by Supreme Court. Heiselt Const, Co. v. Indust. Comm. (Utah.) 166
Trial court's finding will not be reversed if there is any evidence to support
it. Milne v. Sanders (Tenn.)
Supreme Judicial Court has no authority to review finding of fact of com-

mission in absence of fraud, provided such finding is supported by legal
evidence. Gray v. St. Croix Paper Co. (Me.)

If there is no evidence to support findings of fact made by Board, court may
set aside order, decision, or award based thereon, but if there is sub-
stantial evidence supporting findings, court cannot interfere. Valentine
v. Weaver (Ky.)
Courts will not interfere with finding of commission if evidence is conflicting
or permits of different conclusion, even though it may be thought find-
ings are erroneous. Herbig v. Walton Auto Co. (Iowa.)..
Court cannot disturb board's findings as to nature of private road and that
injury sustanied thereon by employee was accident. Tolan v. Philadel-
phia & Reading Coal & Iron Co. (Pa.)
Finding that applicant was employee is subject to review. Roberts v. In-
dust. Accident Comm. of California (Cal.)
Unreasonableness of claimant's refusal to permit operation is question of
fact to be determined from evidence. Strong v. Sonken-Galamba Iron
& Metal Co. (Kan.)
Finding of member of Board adopted by Eoard, that contract of insurance
was with company, a corporation, and that members of a partnership
doing business under name of that company were not persons insured, is
conclusive when supported by evidence. Leone's Case (Mass.)
Finding of single member of Board affirmed and adopted by Board, that
deceased was employee of town and that one who furnished services.
and that of his workmen, including deceased, to the town, was not in-
dependent contractor as to particular work in hand, must stand if sup-
ported by evidence. Chisholm's Case (Mass.)
Adjudication of compensable injury involved in settlement held conclusive
and cannot be raised on appeal from award of referee: Kuhn . Penn-
sylvania R. Co. (Pa.)

142

70

49

41

133.

197

224

252

246

345

274
Board's award on conflicting evidence is final. Lambert v. Powers (Ind.)... 377
Compensation Commisioner's findings are conclusive-have same effect as
judge's findings. Driscoll v. Jewell Belting Co. (Conn.)...
Commissioner's findings of facts are final-though court would reach different
conclusion. Flint v. City of Eldon (Iowa.)....
Commisioner's finding for fact was binding upon appeal to Supreme Court,
if legally supoprted by evidence-Commisioner's finding when supported
by evidence is conclusive. Kelley's Dependents v. Hoosac Lumber Co.
(Vt.)

District court and Supreme Court have no power to review finding of Com-
mission on evidence.-Even if Supreme Court thinks award of Commission
was wrong, where their conclusion is reasonable inference from evi-
dence, court will not disturb it. Picardi v. Indust. Comm. (Colo.)......
Award will not be reviewed by courts except for arbitary or capricious action
in making award. Whipple v. Indust, Comm, of Wash. (Wash.).
Commission's findings are conclusive. Bain v. Indust. Comm. (Utah.)...
Where testimony is susceptible of inferences drawn therefrom by Board, its
conclusion is final, and Supreme Court has no right to interfere. Shaw
v. Packard Motor Car Co. (Mich.)

Finding of facts by Board stands upon same footing as finding of facts by
trial court or verdict of jury, and when such finding is supported by
competent evidence it is concusively binding upon court. United Fourth
Vein Coal Co. v. Williams (Ind.)
"Arbitrary or capriciqus" action

on claim defined-commission's determi-

382

445

493

656

637

562

600

764

nation of degree of compensable injury is not reviewable. Sweitzer v.
Indust. Ins. Comm. (Wash.)
Amount of loss of use of hand by amputation of fingers is question of fact,
not reviewable. North Beck Mining Co. v. Indust. Comm. (Utah).... 755

Commission's findings are final. Moray v. Indust. Comm. (Utah)..
Act authorizes rule limiting review. Shaw's Dependents v. Fred C. Harms
Piano Co. (Okla.)

747

744

676

Gen. Acc.,

Commission's findings on evidence are final. Jones v. Indust. Acc. Comm.
(Cal.)

Findings of commission on substantial evidence are conclusive.
Fire & Life Assur. Corp. v. Indust Acc. Comm. (Cal.).
Commission's findings of evidence are beyond scope of review by court. Geo.

668

659

891

L. Eastman Co. v. Indust. Acc. Comm. (Cal.)..
Findings of fact on evidence held not reviewable. Battey v. Osborne (Conn.) 77€
Findings without evidence to sustain them may be reviewed as matter of
law. Associated Employers' Reciprocal v. State Indust. Comm. (Okla.).. 878
Question of substantial evidence is reviewable as question of law. Spring
Canyon Coal Co. v. Indust, Comm. of Utah (Utah.)......
Reasonableness of claimant's refusal to submit to operation is Jury ques-
tion. Reasonableness of claimant's refusal to submit to operation held
question for jury.-Jury's deciion on appeal is conclusive.-Percentage of
disability of claimant held for jury in view of conflicting testimony.
Grant v. State Indust. Accident Comm. (Ore.)

It cannot be said that inference that death of servant with heart disease was
hastened by inhalation of smoke-laden air in mine was not reasonable
because contrary inference would be equally as reasonable. Utilities Coal
Co. v. Herr (Ind.)

.....

880

805

72

49

91

If there was sufficient competent evidence introduced before commissioner,
his findings of fact will not be disturbed by reason of admission of im-
proper evidence, unless it appears that findings were in part based on
such incompetent evidence. Larrabee's Case (Me.)
Admission of hearsay evidence is not prejudicial if, independent of such evi-
dence, there is sufficient competent evidence to sustain award. Valentine
V. Weaver (Ky.)
Award for total disability will be sustained even though it appears that
board was mistaken as to cause, if incapacity arose from injuries re-
ceived on occasion in question. Margenovitch v. Newport Mining Co.
(Mich.)
Decree for father and stepmother jointly, though stepmother was not de-
pendent, was not prejudicial to employer. Milne v. Sanders (Tenn.).. 142
Admission of hearsay evidence was harmless where other evidence made
prima facie case. Bresee v. Clark Equipment Co. (Mich.)....
398
Inadvertent and incidental misstatement as to date of filing claim made by
deputy commissioner during hearing, which was not misleading and did
not influence action of employer or insurance carrier, is not ground for
reversing award. Kraemer v. Mergenthaler Linotype Co. (N. Y.)...................
Error admitting evidence of conversations held harmless where Board might
have wholly disregarded such evidence and still have been justified in
its conclusion. Fetterhoff v. Gee (Ind.)....

(9). Determination and disposition of cause.
Award being annulled for insufficiency of evidence. cause will be remanded
on commission's statement of new evidence. Clapp's Parking Station
v. Indust. Acc. Comm. (Cal.)
Authority to recommit proceeding is not expressly given law court by stat-
ute, but is under some circumstances necessarily implied, as when new
or modified decree involves weighing of conflicting testimony. Gauthier
v. Penobscot Chemical Fiber Co. (Me.)
Where prayer of injured was for lump sum or for general relief, court was
authorized to increase compensation by decreasing number of weeks un-
der prayer for general relief. Western Indemnity Co. v. Milam (Tex.).. 301
If case was entered in superior court without notice of award having been
given to alleged employer, in absence of waiver or any other extraordi-
nary cause, want of such notice would be a sufficient reason why award
should not be enforced unless on inspection of whole record it was free
from harmful error. Chisholm's Case (Mass.).
Reviewing court should give credit for compensation payments made by em-
ployer. Chase v. Emery Mfg. Co. (Pa.)..
Where finding of Commission with respect to dependency of claimant is not
sufficiently detailed to enable Court to say whether award is justified
by findings or not, but finding is right under evidence, case will not be
sent back for further detail. Picardi v. Indust. Comm. (Colọ)..
Court's decision will not he deferred because similar cases are pending.
of Pasadena v. Indust. Acc. Comm. (Cal.)

REVIEW OF JUDGMENT OF COURT ENTERED ON AWARD
OF BOARD OR COMMISSION.

(2). Decisions reviewable.

(3). Presentation and reservation of grounds of review.
Where commission was not shown to have made ruling on certain matter.
question was not one, for review. Voight v. Indust.. Comm. (I.) . . . . . . .

37

Constitutionality of act will not be determined by Supreme Court where there.
is no showing in record that question was raised in circuit court on re-
view of record of Industrial Board. Oden Coal Co. v. Indust. Comm.
(Ill.

Supreme Court will consider no questions on review that were not properly
raised for consideration in lower court. Snyder v. Indust. Comm. (Ill.)
(3%). Transfer of cause.

(4). Record.

(5). Review.

Supreme Court will not weigh evidence in case determined by Court of Ap-
peals, but will affirm judgment. State ex rel. Turner, Atty. Gen., V.
Derrer (Ohio.)
Judge's finding on motion to recommit proceeding to Board, on ground that
notice of award had not been given alleged employer cannot be said to
be unwarranted, where evidence or statements treated as evidence, on
which it was heard, is not reported. Chisholm's Case (Mass.)..
Under circumstances stated there was no presumption that employer did not
raise question of want of notice on motion to dismiss certiorari. Ridge
Coal Co. v. Indust. Comm. (III)

Insurer held estopped from asserting it was not bound by
Proper form of appeal for assignments of error would
tion of court below in sustaining relevant exceptions.
Mfg. Co. (Pa.)

Admission of award in evidence held not reversible error.
Guaranty Co. of Baltimore, Md., v. Lowry (Tex.).
Questions of law.

(6).

order of court-
be to assign ac-
Chase v. Emery
U. S. Fidelity &

30

32

124

246

363

416

420

363

345

Court cannot consider evidence which merely raises question of fact. Ridge
Coal Co. v. Indust. Comm. (II.)
Commissioner's finding, approved by superior court, is presumed correct. Dris-
coll v. Jewell Belting Co. (Conn.)
Court's, findings on question of lump sum compensation are subject to re-
view. Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Boudreaux (Tex.)
Review by Court of Appeals nited to question whether facts found sup-
port compensation award.. McCune v. Wm. B. Pell & Bros. (Ky.)..... 525
Where district court finds, on substantially conflicting evidence that

em-

435

ployee was injured in particular manner, such finding of fact will not
be reversed on appeal unless clearly wrong. Swift & Co. v. Prince (Neb.) 573
Review limited to question whether decision is supported by credible evi-
dence. Shaw's Dependents v. Fred C. 'Harms Piano Co. (S. D.)....
Court's finding on evidnce is conclusive. Simon v. H. J. Cat oe Co. (Neb.) 730
Judgment on conflicting evidence is final. Derr v. Kirkpatri (Neb.).

744

726

(5). Determination and disposition.

$ 419.

PROCEEDINGS TO INCREASE, DIMINISH, OR TERMINATE COM-
PENSATION.

...

Termination of "compensation" on cessation of disability not change of
"status" forbidden. Fennessey's Case (Me.)
Compensation for increased disability held not detrmined on review before
commission. Centralia Coal Co. v. Indust. Comm. (I.).
Remedy, if any, needed by reason of changed conditions or otherwise, must
be by application for review and, if refused approval or if unapproved,
original petition is appropriate remedy, and no time is limited for its
filing as in case of petition for review and original petition.-Petition
of employee. by reason of changed conditions following injury and award,
should show emplover, however informally, nature of claim.-Defective-
ness of petition by reason of changed conditions after award does not
require reversal of award based thereon where case was apparently fully
heard and defendants were not misled or prejudiced. Gauthier v. Pen-
obscot Chemical Fiber Co. (Me.)

If finger is amputated, there must be proof of that fact, and proof that it
was traceable to injury in question, for compensation. Woodcock V.
Dodge Bros. (Mich.)

59

26

65

97

266

Commission acted within its powers in reopening case to increase lump sum
award. Metcalf v. Firth Carpet Co. (N. Y.)
Power rests with Board to terminate compensation at any time on showing
that injury had healed. Employers' Indemnity Corp. v. Woods (Tex.).. 290
Limitation on review runs from end of compensation period-judgment for
compensation is subject to modification by board-employers and insur-
ance carriers in default in payment of compensation are not entitled to.
consideration. Lambert v. Powers (Ind.)

To review award on ground of increased disability, it is not necessary that
original award was reviewed and approved--original evidence is avail-
able on review-finding of commission that injury is compensable is final.
Western Foundry Co. v. Indust. Comm. (III.)
Cómpensation period for total disability is not fixed within statutory limita-
tion. Fort Branch Coal Co. v. Farley (Ind.)'

377

701

376

Lump sum settlement approvied by trial court and formally confirmed by its judgment and paid by employer in absence of fraud or deception is final. Mistakes statute is inapplicable to lump sum settlement. Integrity Mut. Casualty Co. of Chicago, Ill., v. Nelson (Minn.).....

570

430. COSTS, FEES, AND EXPENSES.

Claimant's counsel entitled to fees for service in court affirming award.— Court may allow claimant's counsel reasonable fee. Derr v. Kirkpatrick (Neb.)

726