Glass v. State Department of Highways

Loring, Justice. This case comes here by writ of certiorari to review an order of the industrial commission denying the relator’s motion for the taking of additional evidence and for a rehearing in a workmen’s compensation matter, the position of the relator being that the industrial commission abused its discretion as a matter of law in denying the relator’s motion. Relator was injured in the course of his employment with the department of highways on May 8, 1987. The department was notified of the accident, but the relator continued at his regular *180 work without loss oí wages until April 5, 1939, when he ivas separated front the service. April 24, 1939, he submitted to an operation for hernia and Avas paid compensation for six Aveeks. June 20, 1939, the industrial commission made its findings and final proposed aAvard of six Aveeks’ compensation. June 23, 1939, relator filed written objections to the proposed award and on the evidence taken at hearings held August 22, 1939, and December 29, 1939, the referee made findings providing for eight weeks’ compensation. From the decision of the referee the relator appealed to the industrial commission and on December 18, 1940, moved the commission for an order for the taking of further testimony or for a trial de novo. January 4, 1941, the commission denied the motion for rehearing and adopted and affirmed the findings and award of the referee. The injuries inflicted upon the relator in the accident of May 8, 1937, consisted of a strain of the back muscles, chip fracture of the ulna, body bruises, and inguinal hernia. It was also the claim of the relator that he fell on his head at the time of the accident. Relator’s attending physician Avas of the opinion that there had been a complete recoArery from all of the injuries and that there were no permanent results. He Avas also of the opinion that relator’s disability after the operation terminated at the end of eight weeks. In December 1939 relator complained of constipation, Aveak spells, and pains in the neighborhood of the scar left by the operation and toAvard the heart, as Avell as in the back and the left arm. He also claimed restlessness and other Aveakness. Medical examination disclosed that he was afflicted with a duodenal ulcer, spastic constipation, and myocardial damage to his heart, to all of Avhich the medical opinion Avas that the accident had no relation. In October .1939, at the suggestion of his counsel, the relator Avas examined at the University Hospital, and it is his claim that he Avas there treated by the application of X-rays to his head and, although the hospital records disclose no information upon which an inference of brain tumor could be based, relator noAV claims that the alleged X-ray treatments are given only *181 for malignant brain tumors and that based upon this evidence a rehearing de novo should be had. There is no evidence of the X-ray treatments to his head other than his own affidavit. It will be seen from the foregoing statement that there was no abuse of discretion by the commission. From the showing made, it would have been difficult for the commission to have arrived at any other decision. On so slender a showing as that made by the relator we could not hold that there was not ample evidence to support the commission’s action. The writ of certiorari is discharged and the order of the commission affirmed.