Appellant contends that the finding, “The silicosis from which the applicant suffers is nondisabling in nature” is not such a finding as sec. 102.18, Stats., demаnds. He insists that to be valid the findings must contain more detail to demonstrate that the silicosis is nondisabling and, as it stands, the so-called finding is nоt a finding of fact but is a mere conclusion. The details which appellant wants are evidentiary facts upon which the ultimаte fact of disability or nondisability might depend; but the commission is not required by statute to make findings of evidentiary facts. The facts whiсh the statute requires are “ ‘the “ultimate” facts,
i.e.,
the facts upon which the plaintiff’s right of recovery or the defendant’s right to defeat a recovery necessarily depends.’ ”
Gerue v. Industrial Comm.
(1931),
*528
The determination of the extent or duration of disability of an applicant for workmen’s compensation presents a question of fact and not of law.
Sheehan v. Industrial Comm.
(1956),
Whether the evidence sustains those findings is, of course, another question and it is appellant’s principal contention that it does not. However, the undisputed evidence, including the testimony of appellant, himself, is that for some twenty years he worked for Universal Rundle Corporation as a grinder and sand blaster. This was dusty work and he was given periodic physical examinations by a specialist in chest diseases. On April 2, 1954, the X ray showed evidencе of developing nodulations in both lungs. The specialist recommended that Glodowski be transferred to work which was not dusty. The еmployer then transferred Glodowski to a number of other jobs, such as cleaning the roof, cutting weeds, pushing a truck. He was physically capable of continuing the work of grinding and sandblasting and he was capable of doing the work involved in the jobs to which he was transferred. The dusty work had paid him from $2.75 to $2.85 per hour; the later positions paid him about $1.71.
In 1956 Universal Rundle Corporаtion discharged Glodowski for getting drunk during working hours. After that Glodowski has held various jobs for other employers in nondusty work. Examination of appellant’s lungs as of the date of his hearing by the Industrial Commission showed silicosis of the late second and early third stage.
Thе finding of fact by the commission on disputed questions of fact is conclusive if supported by credible evidence. Sheehan v. Industrial Comm., supra.
*529 “1. Where disрuted medical testimony raises a question of fact, the findings of the industrial commission in a workmen’s compensation case are conclusive.
“2. It was the claimant’s burden to prove all facts essential to workmen’s compensation to еstablish that the injury caused the disability for which compensation benefits were being claimed.”
Tuohy v. Industrial Comm.
(1958), 5 Wis. (2d) 576 (syllabus),
“The plaintiff had the burden of prоving the existence of all facts essential to compensation and if, in the mind of the commission, she failed to do so, it was the commission’s duty to deny the application.
Hemans v. Industrial Comm.
(1954), ante, p. 100,
Two doctors who had made tests of Glodowski’s, lungs gave their opinion that the silicosis from which he suffered was not disabling. A third doctor testified thаt he believed the silicosis was beginning to be disabling. There is no dispute that at the time Glodowski was taken off the dusty job he was physiсally capable of continuing that work. It was the threat to his health if he continued the exposure to dust which caused his transfer. A change of work became advisable to prevent disabling consequences but disability had not occurred. Evidenсe sustains the commission’s finding that the silicosis from which Glodowski suffers is non-disabling.
The material provisions of sec. 102.565, Stats. 1953, are as set forth in the above statement of facts.
The learned trial court well said:
“It is undisputed that the purpose of enacting sec. 102.565 which was initially created by ch. 488, Laws of 1935, was to take care of wage loss suffered by a worker who was *530 discharged when an employer learned that hе was suffering from silicosis but was still able physically to continue in his employment. The wage indemnification provided in the statute wаs to take care of such discharged worker who had to find a new job and often learn a new trade.”
We view the prеsent case as one exactly of the kind for which the statute was designed. The order of the commission gives Glodowski the mаximum allowance permitted by the above statute and, for possible future consideration, the order recites:
“That jurisdiction is reserved for further findings and order in the event that the applicant becomes disabled or needs treatment beсause of his silicosis injury; that as so modified the findings and order of the examiner are hereby affirmed.”
As a practical prоposition, the trial court and we are at a loss to discover why the appellant considers himself aggrieved by the order.
Appellant bitterly complains that the commission has discriminated against him because the commission has here rеached a conclusion opposite to that in other cases when, he asserts, similar facts were involved. As an аrgument intended to persuade a court to reverse the decision of the commission it has no merit. In cases on identiсal facts, if the facts are in dispute and there is any credible evidence to support a decision, either way, thе commission’s finding of fact is beyond reach of the court.
“If the commission finds against the great weight and clear prepоnderance of the evidence, or if it finds upon a given state of the evidence one way in one case and another way in another case, there being the requisite minimum evidence in each case, the matter is beyond the jurisdiction of this court.”
Hills Dry Goods Co. v. Industrial Comm.
(1935),
By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.