the same footing as a finding of a trial court or the verdict of a jury, and when sustained by competent evidence is binding on the court on appeal. (For other cases, see Master and Servant, Dec. Dig. § 417 [7].) 4. MASTER AND SERVANT-WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION -FINDINGS OF INDUSTRIAL BOARD-REVIEW. Where every material fact found by the Industrial Board is sustained by some competent evidence, the court on appeal will not interfere, though some of the evidence is conflicting. (For other cases, see Master and Servant, Dec. Dig. § 417[7].) 5. MASTER AND SERVANT-WORKMEN'S -FINDINGS-REVIEW. COMPENSATION The mere fact that incompetent evidence is heard is no cause for reversal where there was some competent evidence which tended to establish every material fact found by the Industrial Board. (For other cases, see Master and Servant, Dec. Dig. § 417[8].) 6. MASTER AND SERVANT-PERSONAL INJURIES-"ARISING OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT." Plaintiff servant, who, upon discovering that no chute with which to unload coal had been placed on his wagon, went to a nearby saloon and telephoned to his master's office, and who was struck by a passing automobile while in the act of mounting his wagon after he returned, held injury by accident "arising out of and in the course of his employment" within Workmen's Compensation Act. (For other cases, see Master and Servant, Dec. Dig. § 375[1].) (For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Course of Employment.) 7. MASTER AND SERVANT-AWARD OF INDUSTRIAL BOARD -GROUNDS FOR REVERSAL. That the Industrial Board awarded compensation for maximum period of 500 weeks instead of 300 weeks, as asked by claimant, does not afford ground for reversal, the duration of award being limited as the law provides, and the appellant not having shown that its rights were in any way prejudiced. (For other cases, see Master and Servant, Dec. Dig. § 417 [8].) 8. MASTER AND SERVANT-AWARD OF INDUSTRIAL BOARD -GROUNDS FOR REVERSAL. The exact degree of impairment to claimant's eye not being shown by the evidence, the fact that the Industrial Board left permanent mpairment of vision open for future consideration is not a cause for reversal. (For other cases, see Master and Servant, Dec. Dig. § 417[9].) Appeal from Industrial Board. Proceedings for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Joe Ceislik against the Consumers' Company. From an award for claimant by the full board upon review of an award made by a single member, the Company appeals. Affirmed. McKinley, Hansen & Schmauch, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant. BATTMAN, P. J. Appellee filed his claim before the Industrial Board, alleging that on April 13, 1918, he received personal injuries by reason of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by appellant, and asking for an adjustment of his compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Laws 1915, c. 106). The claim was heard before a single member of the board, who made a finding and an award in favor of appellee. Appellant, in due time, filed its application for a review of said award. Prior to the hearing on review, appellant requested leave to submit new and additional evidence on such hearing, and supported his request by the affidavit of its assistant secretary. This request was denied, and the full board thereafter reviewed the evidence introduced at the original hearing, and, having heard the argument of counsel, made a finding of facts on which the full board made the following award: "It is therefore considered and ordered that the plaintiff be, and he is hereby, awarded compensation at the rate of $10.40 per week on account of his disability to work for the injuries received other than to his right eye, beginning on the 28th day of April, 1918, and to continue so long as the plaintiff's injuries, other than the injury to the right eye, wholly disable him for work, not exceeding 500 weeks, and providing that the total compensation shall in no event exceed $5,000. It is further ordered that the question as to the degree of permanent impairment, if any, of the vision of the plaintiff's right eye, be and the same is hereby ordered left open for future consideration. It is further ordered that the defendant pay the cost of the proceedings." From this award appellant has appealed, and has assigned errors which require a consideration of the questions hereinafter determined. [1, 2] Appellant contends that the denial of its request for leave to submit additional evidence on review of the original award was an abuse of discretion on the part of the board. Section 58 of the Workmen's Compensation Act provides for filing an application before the Industrial Board for a hearing, where the parties fail to reach an agreement in regard to compensation. Section 59 provides that the board, by any or all of its members, shall hear the parties at issue, their representatives and witnesses, and shall determine the dispute in a summary manner. Such determination is final and conclusive, unless one of the parties feels aggrieved by the decision. In that event, if such award was made by less than all members of the board, the dissatisfied party may have a review thereof, by filing an application therefor within the time designated in section 60 of said act. On such review the parties are not given a right to submit additional evidence, but under the provisions of said section 60, the board may hear additional evidence if it deems it advisable to do so. This renders the admission of additional evidence discretionary with the board, and its action in that regard is not subject to review by this court, unless the record shows an abuse of such discretion. Bimel, etc., Co. v. Loper (1917) 117 N. E. 527. In the instant case the parties were given an opportunity to submit all their evidence at the first hearing before the single member of the board. On the hearing on review, appellant was not entitled as a matter of right to submit additional evidence. It recognized such fact, and sought to have the board exercise its discretion in that regard in its favor. To that end, it submitted the affidavit of its assistant secretary in support of such request, and attempted thereby to show facts which would make a denial thereof an abuse of discretion on the part of the board. Appellant's brief states that it is shown by said affidavit that: "Three persons, whose names appellant is ready to submit to the board, have since then [the former hearing] disclosed the fact that they were eyewitnesses to circumstances that show that appellee was not, at the time of the injury, in the service of appellant, but engaged on a personal errand of his own." It also states that said affidavit shows that another witness has been discovered since the original hearing, whose name appellant is ready to furnish to the board, "who will, if called, disprove the testimony of appellee concerning the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident, and impeach his testimony, and show that appellee was at the time of the injury engaged in a personal mission of his own, and not on the business of the company." This is the only evidence which appellant asked to submit on review, and the only showing as to its character, as far as disclosed by appellant's brief. It will be observed that there is no showing as to what the testimony of said witnesses would be, but only a statement of a conclusion in that regard. The board had a right to know what the testimony of each of such witnesses would be, in order that it might draw its own conclusion as to what it would tend to prove or disprove, if anything. In the absence of such a showing we cannot say that the board abused its discretion in refusing to permit appellant to introduce additional evidence at the hearing on review. [3, 4] Appellant contends that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the finding of facts. In considering this contention it should be borne in mind that a finding of facts by the Industrial Board stands upon the same footing as the finding of the trial court or the verdict of a jury, and when sustained by any competent evidence is conclusively binding on this court. Bloomington-Bedford Stone Co. v. Phillips (1917) 116 N. E. 850; Sugar Valley Coal Co. v. Drake (1917) 117 N. E. 937. Also that such board, like a court or jury, may draw reasonable inferences from the facts and circumstances in evidence. Haskell & Barker Car Co. v. Brown (1917) 117 N. E. 555. With these settled rules in mind, we have reviewed the evidence in the light of appellant's contention, and find ourselves unable to agree that it is not sufficient to sustain the finding of facts. Every material fact found is sustained by some competent evidence. True, some of it is strongly conflicting as appellant has cited, but it is not within the province of this court to weigh the same, and thereby determine its preponderance. Public Utilities Co. v. Cosby (1915) 60 Ind. App. 252, 110 N. E. 576. [5] Appellant also contends that its rights were prejudiced by the board's consideration of incompetent evidence. If it be conceded that incompetent evidence was heard, it does not follow that the board gave it weight in arriving at its conclusions as to the facts established. The mere fact that incompetent evidence is heard is not cause for reversal, where, as in this case, there was some competent evidence which tended to establish every material fact found. United Paperboard Co. v. Lewis (1917) 117 N. È. 276. [6] Appellant's contention that the facts found are not sufficient to sustain the award is not well taken. Such facts show that appellee was in the employment of appellant as a teamster at an average working wage of $18.90, that on said date, in the regular discharge of the duties of his employment, he was driving a team delivering coal; that he left appellant's place of business with a load of coal for delivery to a customer; that after driving about three squares and a half his hat was blown off his head; that he stopped his team, alighted from his wagon, and procured his hat; that upon going back to his wagon he discovered that the persons loading the wagon had failed to put a chute on it to be used in unloading the coal; that prior to that time he had been instructed by appellant that when he discovered that he did not have a chute and needed one, instead of returning to the yard with his load, he should call by phone, and a chute would be sent him; that, acting under said instructions, he went into a saloon near the point where his team had been stopped, and called appellant's officers, and requested that a chute be sent to him; that he returned from telephoning to his wagon, and while in the act of mounting the same he was struck by a passing automobile and run over; that as a result he sustained injuries which wholly disabled him for the work at which he was engaged at the time of the accident; and that appellant had actual knowledge of appellee's injury within ten minutes after it occurred. Such facts clearly show that appellee was injured by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Bachman v. Waterman (1918) 121 N. E. 9. They also show that the disability for work still continued, and that the award was for the amount and duration provided by law, and hence not excessive, as appellant contends. Acts 1917, p. 227. [7] The fact that the board awarded appellee compensation for maximum period of 500 weeks instead of 300 weeks, as asked by appellee in his claim for compensation does not afford ground for reversal. The duration of the award was limited as the law provides, and appellant has not shown that its rights were in any way prejudiced by the fact stated. [8] Appellant also complains of that part of the award, which leaves the question of the degree of permanent impairment of the vision of appellee's right eye, if any, open for future consideration. It appears from the finding of facts that the exact degree of impairment to appellee's right eye is not shown by the evidence. Appellant cannot be required to pay any compensation on account of such injury without a further hearing and award, in which event it must be given full opportunity to protect its rights under the law in that regard. It is clear that such action of the board is not cause for reversal. The award is affirmed, and by virtue of this statute the amount thereof is increased 5 per cent. MASTER AND SERVANT-WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION-APPEAL-CONFLICTING EVIDENCE. Where the evidence is conflicting and tends to support the conclusion reached by he Industrial Board, the Appellate Court will not disturb the board's finding. (For other cases, see Master and Servant, Dec. Dig. § 417[7].) Appeal from Industrial Board. Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Laws 1915, c. 106) by Giovanni Celotto for compensation for injury, opposed by the Indiana Car & Equipment Company, employer. From the award of the Industrial Board for the employee, the employer appeals. Afirmed. Pickens, Moores, Davidson & Pickens, of Indianapolis, an Bomberger, Peters & Morthland, of Hammond, for appellant. Meade & Royce, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee. DAUSMAN, C. J. that he received an Appellee was awarded compensation on the ground injury by accident while working for appellant. * Decision rendered, Feb. 13, 1919. 121 N. E. Rep. 834. In its finding the Industrial Board has included the following facts: "On April 11, 1917, the plaintiff was in the employment of the defendant as a carpenter at an average weekly wage of $25. On said date, while engaged in the discharge of the duties of his employment, and while lifting a sill weighing more than 400 pounds, the plaintiff suddenly, unexpectedly, and accidentally received a wrench or sprain of the dorsal section of the spinal column, as a result of which he has been totally disabled for work continuously since his injury until the original hearing of this claim and was then so totally disabled for work. The plaintiff's disability is probably total and permanent." The only error assigned, which the court can consider, is that the award of the full board is contrary to law. We have carefully examined the evidence, and we find that there is no controversy concerning the following facts: Between 5 and 6 o'clock in the afternoon of April 11, 1917, the workman was lifting a car sill in an effort to put it over some other timber, when he felt a sudden and violent pain in his back. He fell to the ground and was unconscious for about ten minutes. He contrived to get home and immediately went to bed. The pain caused him to cry like a child. The next day his employer sent a physician to treat him. This doctor found him complaining of a severe pain in the back "across the lumbar region and on the left side immediately below the ribs." The doctor gave him an application to be rubbed on to stimulate the muscles; and, to the best of his recollection, used adhesive straps across the back to strap the muscles; and told him to apply external heat to the afflicted region. This doctor visited him about six times and was of the opinion that there was not much, if anything, wrong with him. Subsequently he had five other doctors and a chiropractor. On October 2, 1917, an X-ray plate was made which revealed the fact that the spine was 11⁄2 inches out of alignment, the vertebræ in the region of the pain - being curved that far to the left. The plate also indicated a pathological condition of the vertebræ. Tests were made which proved the existence of tubercular infection in the vertebræ. The workman was a strong man, 27 years of age. Just prior to his present employment he had worked nealy three years as a carpenter for the Chicago Great Western Railway Company and was accustomed to lifting car sills. The real controversy rests on a dispute concerning cause and effect. Appellant contends that prior to the lifting of the sill the workman had been afflicted with tuberculosis in the vertebræ; that he was unconscious of the existence of the disease until the lifting called his attention to it; and that the disease was the sole cause of his disability—or, at least, the sole cause of the continuing disability. Appellee contends that the lifting caused a traumatism (broke the tissues, ruptured the blood vessels, and dislocated the vertebræ); that the tubercular process would never have come into existence but for the traumatism; and that the lifting is the sole cause of all the disability which has followed. The evidence relating to this controversy is conflicting. Appellant's contention rests wholly on the opinion of the doctors. Appellee's contention rests partly on these opinions and partly on facts and circumstances from which the Industrial Board was competent to draw a conclusion without the aid of experts. The evidence tends fairly to support the conclusions reached by the board, and therefore we cannot disturb the finding. Haskell & Barker Car Co. v. Brown, 117 N. E. 555; Muncie Foundry & Machine Co. v. Coffee, 117 N. E. 524. The award is affirmed, and by virtue of statute the amount thereof is increased 5 per cent. |