*1 soup cafe across the street but circumstances appearing already police of her officers custody gave appellant ample Mrs. Thatcher into cause believing furtively acting accomplice. an. she was as believing” Hence, had “reasonable cause appellant selling process that she inwas the car for her hus- participating band and was then there the scheme Mercury Company. to swindle the Provo In view Lincoln leading up it, say of the circumstances I would that the privileged (3), arrest was 105-13-4 under Section U. C. A. 1943.
McDONOUGH, WOLFE, J. C. J. being
CROCKETT, J., disqualified, participate did not herein.
HENRIOD, J., participating.
EWELL v. INDUSTRIAL al. COMMISSION et No. 7700. Decided December *2 J., Compensation See 71 Acts, C. Workmen’s sec. 929. Pre-exist-
ing physical condition; by. workmen’s 58 Am. Jur., Compensation, 247, 248; Workmen’s secs. 60 A. L. R. 1299. Dwight King, L. City, plaintiff. Salt Lake for Vernon, Clinton D. Atty. Gen., F. A. Trottier, G. Hal Taylor, City, Salt Lake for defendants.
HENRIOD, Justice. Review of an Industrial denying Commission plain- order tiff’s claim for surgical costs incident removal of a growth (pterygium) eye, on following his an on the job accident when a flash from a welder’s torch struck him in the reversed, The order is each side to bear its costs. following
The undisputed: Ewell, facts were power operator many years, shovel constantly exposed
673 blowing eyes. By 1948 his he had a origin. eye, on each traumatic in on right eye pronounced, affecting cornea, was more surgery. correctional He was advised sooner require surgery, although or later the left also would pterygium might years. stationary A remain progressive is of a if continued trauma occurs, anything contacting growth. further causes him, Between 1948 and 1950 did al- his not bother though he continued the work. shovel In the flame accidentally from a welder’s him in burning eyeball, causing inflammation, soreness and persisted for 6 weeks. cornea, impinging was observed to re- quiring surgery. specialist
A testified in his flash from *3 aggravated the torch pterygium. the of There condition by was no evidence that were wind Ewell’s surgery and employment, dust outside of his and none that probably necessary would been have at the time of accident, any or at definite future time whether the flash burn had occurred or not. uncontroverted,
These facts were the Commission found that Ewell “presumably subjected was wind and dust outside of
employment”, that surgery
“the have place, whether flash incident had and that the flash pterygium.” burn did not accelerate of We conclude that evidence shows without contradic tion, and record, without intrinsic discredit thereof (1) pre-existing that there was a diseased of condition aggravated by eye flash resulting compensable in a and (2) order was disability; that the Commission’s and by not arbitrary a which was shielded and of rendering inviolate the Commission’s this court decisions of findings evidence, conflicting points are of which both Commission, 1937, 91 in Gerber v. discussed P. 2d 1281. Utah JJ., CROCKETT, concur.
WADE WOLFE, Chief Justice.
I dissent. eye told
Applicant a and was by in 1948 his doctor it taken sooner or have date he would later “that a later
care of.”
normally
testimony
pterygiums
are
medical
is that
by exposure
caused
their
rate
exposure.
progress depends
on the extent of such
likely
affirmatively
replied
that a con-
doctor
approximately an-
exposure to wind and
tinuous
dust
years
pterygium in the
have caused the
other two
could not
to increase. He also testified
he
was af-
determine whether the rate
fected
flash
he had
examined the
because
July 14, 1950.
after 1948 until
blinding
May 29,
from a
On
welder’s
*4
eye.
stayed
applicant
in
He
home
work
from
day
packs
with
the next
He worked there-
that he
for six weeks when his doctor advised him
state of
should have
removed. Under this
the evidence the referee concluded that
“The
place.”
the flash incident
took
whether or not
Periodically,
with a close case
we are confronted
weighing
in
engenders sympathy
niceties
and involves
governed by
but which nevertheless
of evidence
legislature
made the
overarching principle
has
judges
of this court
Industrial Commission
Norris
the case of
the facts. Witness
sole finders of
v.
Commission,
McDONOUGH, J., WOLFE, C. J. Third-Party (Bonneru, v. LAKE
EISNER SALT CITY Respondent). Defendant and 7675. Decided December No.