161 Wis. 446 | Wis. | 1915
Lead Opinion
We have set out tbe findings and decision of tbe Industrial Commission in tbe statement of facts. Also tbe finding of tbe court below in ordering tbe award affirmed. Tbe only question presented here is whether tbe award is supported by tbe evidence.
If in any reasonable view of tbe evidence it will support either directly or by fair inference tbe findings made by tbe Commission, such findings are conclusive upon .the court. Milwaukee v. Industrial Comm. 160 Wis. 238, 151 N. W. 247; Milwaukee C. & G. Co. v. Industrial Comm. 160 Wis. 247, 151 N. W. 245; Milwaukee Western F. Co. v. Industrial Comm. 159 Wis. 635, 150 N. W. 998; Kill v. Industrial Comm. 160 Wis. 549, 152 N. W. 148. A careful reading of
By the Court. — The judgment is affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting). I think the award is wrong. The finding that the slight accident with the barrel was the proximate cause of the adenitis is founded on the merest conjecture. It is clear that there was no break or laceration of the skin, and it is equally clear that if the presence of the germs was due to a traumatic injury there must have been a break in the skin to give them entrance. As I read the testimony, no physician would venture a serious opinion that the respondent’s disease was caused by the barrel incident. There was a bare possibility and no more. Awards cannot properly be founded on bare possibilities.
