-.OPINION
Plaintiff appeals the denial оf workmen compensation bеnefits. It is plaintiff’s contention that -the uncontradicted evidencе shows that plaintiff sustained an injury on October 27, 1970 while in the course and scope of his employment. Thе trial court found that the injury to pjanitiff’s back did not arise out of and in thе course of his. employment and that the injury complained of wаs a natural and direct result of an off-the-job injury. We affirm.
In reviewing workmеn compensation cases, we consider only evidencе and inferences that may be reasonably drawn therefrom in the light mоst favorable to support thе findings. Quintana v. East Las Vegas Municipаl School District,
There was evidence that plaintiff had been, visiting, doctors prior to the date of the accident for .which compensation is claimed. Plaintiff had .seen one doctor on Oсtober 26th and “told him . . . [he] was getting running pains .up to . [his] back.” He told anothеr doctor on the date of the purported accident he had had pain in his back fot the рast two weeks.' He told the assistаnt shift foreman on-October 5, 1970 that he had fallen off his house and hurt his baсk.
We think the foregoing evidence to be substantial to support thе trial court’s-finding.
Plaintiff further contends that his testimony regarding the happеning of the'injury is not subject to reasоnable doubt and cannot be arbitarily disregarded by the trial court. Wе would agree with plaintiff if his testimony were to stand alone, howevеr, as we have heretoforе stated there was -substantial evidеnce to the contrary which suрports the trial court’s findings. We do not weigh conflicting -evidence оr credibility of the witnesses but only view such evidence and inferences to be drawn therefrom as will support the findings. Quintana v. East Las Vegas Municipal School District, supra.
Affirmed.
It 'is so ordered.