Charles E. MINTON, Petitioner,
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, and Western Knapp Engineering Company, Respondents.
[90 Ariz. 255] H. S. McCluskey, Phoenix, for petitioner.
Frances M. Long, Phoenix, for respondent Industrial Commission of Arizona. Donald J. Morgan, James D. Lester, Edward E. Davis and C. E. Singer, Jr., Phoenix, of counsel.
STRUCKMEYER, Chief Justice.
Petitioner, Charles E. Minton, in April of 1956, sustained personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with Western Knapp Engineering Company. The accident was accepted as compensable by the Industrial Commission of Arizona and on October 20th, 1959, it entered an award predicated on the following findings:
'1. That applicant sustained personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the above-named defendant employer on April 17, 1956.
'2. That the average monthly wage of applicant prior to injury was the sum of $394.40.
'3. That applicant's physical condition became stationary on October 5, 1959 and is now stationary.
'4. That applicant is entitled to accident benefits through October 12, 1959.
'5. That applicant has sustained a 10% general physical functional disability as the result of said accident.
'6. That this Commission desires additional evidence of applicant's present earning capacity before determining an award for unscheduled permanent partial disability under A.R.S., Section 23-1044 C & D, 1956, and therefore finds that applicant should be continued in a temporary partial disability status through January 10, 1960 and is entitled to compensation therefor on the basis of 65% of the difference between applicant's average monthly wage prior to injury as set forth in Finding No. 2 hereof, and the wage applicant is able to earn through January 10, 1960.'
From an order affirming the foregoing findings and the award predicated thereon petitioner applied to this Court for a writ of certiorari.
The first issue raised is whether there is sufficient evidence to reasonably
support the Commission's findings 3 and 5. We first note that it has been a long standing rule to treat the Industrial Commission's findings of fact in the same way as the [90 Ariz. 256] Court treats those of a trial court. They will be sustained if supported by any substantial evidence even though the evidence is in conflict. Cain v. Industrial Commission, 87 Ariz. 40, 347 P.2d 699; McGill v. Industrial Commission, 82 Ariz. 36, 307 P.2d 1042.
As to finding 3, the Medical Advisory Board reported to the Commission:
'It is the opinion of this Board that the patient has reached a stationary point in recovery from his injury and that no ...