261 P. 584 | Kan. | 1927
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The action was one to recover under the workmen’s compensation act. Plaintiff was injured while in the employ of defendant November 6, 1924. Upon application an arbitrator was
It is apparent that plaintiff was seeking a review upon two grounds; first, that his disability had increased, and second, that the award of the arbitrator was grossly inadequate. There was evidence that his injuries had increased and that he had been able to earn on an average only $2.50 per week since his injury. The evidence showed that he earned more in 1925 than in 1926, and at the time of the hearing before the district court was unable to work because of such injury.
A contention by the defendant that the award was not subject to
It is contended by the defendant that the trial court by its judgment found generally against the plaintiff on the facts as well as the law, and that therefore the court’s finding is conclusive. The record is not clear in this regard. If the trial court finds as a matter of fact that plaintiff is not entitled to increased compensation, that determination will, of course, be controlling.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views herein expressed.