Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Smith v. Industrial Commission of Arizona

Supreme Court of Arizona

February 15, 1950

SMITH
v.
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA et al

Award affirmed.

Dwight L. Solomon, of Phoenix, attorney for petitioner.

Donald J. Morgan, Phoenix, attorney for respondent The Industrial Commission of Arizona; H. S. McCluskey and Robert E. Yount, Phoenix, of counsel.

Stanford, Justice. La Prade, C. J., and Udall, Phelps and De Concini, JJ., concur.

OPINION

Stanford, Justice.

It is the claim of petitioner that on the 6th day of April, 1946, she was hurt in an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment while working for Tom M. Bunn and T. Yuki, doing business as Salinas Valley Vegetable Exchange, by being hit or struck on the wrist of the right (or major) hand while employed as a lettuce trimmer. The said employers were insured against liability by the Industrial Commission of Arizona.

After three surgical operations performed on the dates of August 20, 1946, November 8, 1946 and July 21, 1948, the petitioner drew compensation for a period of time and then returned to work, but in each instance she claimed the wrist did not function.

The Commission on January 21, 1949, made its third finding and award providing for accident benefits and compensation for temporary disability; established the average monthly wage at $ 219.90, and "7. That [69 Ariz. 400] said injury caused also a permanent partial disability equal to 5% loss of function of the right (major) hand and entitles said applicant to compensation therefor in the sum of $ 109.95 monthly for a period of 2-1/2 months."

It is the claim of petitioner

"(a) * * * that the Commission erroneously based its order upon a medical board consultation on December 14, 1948, which fixed petitioner's functional loss at 5%.

"(b) The Commission failed to consider the continuing nature of Petitioner's disability and its nature in relation to her occupation.

* * *

"(d) The Commission confused the effect Petitioner's injury had upon the percentage of disability to earn her former wages, with the percentage of functional physical ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.