Mere fact that each finding of referee in proceedings under act is not labeled as finding of fact or conclusion of law in no way changes their actual character and where a series of facts are found showing that employee was injured on employer's premises lack of formality stated conclusion that injury so occurred is not fatal. Dainty v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Co. (Pa.) Nothing in Compensation Act authorizes award to dependent widow to be made upon conditions. Newton v. Rhode Island Co. (R. I.).

(5).

It must be presumed upon certiorari to board that the board gave due consideration to question of fact in issue. Adams v. W. E. Wood Co. et al (Mich.)

....

784

527

311

If evidence in favor of applicant sustains award of commission, weight of evidence to contrary will not be considered by reviewing court-determination of facts upon contradictory evidence by commission is final. Pekin Cooperage Co. v. Industrial Commission et al. (Ill.)......

(1). Nature and form of remedy.

On application for judgment for award and attorney's fees in accordance with statute, court has no jurisdiction to review decision of board, construe statute, or determine whether decision is correct. Friedman Mfg. Co. v. Industrial Commission of Illinois et al. (Ill.)...

Suit by insurer to annul and cancel award of Industrial Accident Board is not strictly speaking, an appeal, and trial is de novo; the effect being similar to that of an appeal from justice court judgment. Georgia Casualty Co. v. Griesenbeck et ux. (Tex.)

.....

Findings of fact by which Commission determines itself clothed with jurisdiction are reviewable by Supreme Court. Miller & Lux Incorporated v. Industrial Accident Commission of California (Cal.) Railroad company against which board of arbitration appointed under Compensation Act had made award in favor of widow of deceased servant, killed in interstate commerce, held entitled to certiorari to test right of Board to act, remedy by appeal after confirmation of award by district court not being plain. speedy or adequate. Des Moines Union Ry. Co. v. Funk, Industrial Com'r, et al. (Iowa)

(31%).

Payment of weekly allowance under award by Commission cannot be enJoined pending decision of court on questions involved. Employers' Mut. Ins. Co. et al. v. Industrial Commission of Colorado et al. (Col.)........ Equity has jurisdiction of suit to enjoin successful claimant before Commission from enforcing award by execution or other process-superior court not deprived of jurisdiction to restrain execution of award by Compensation Act. Gamble v. Superior Court in and for Alameda County et al. (Cal.)

(8%). Decisions reviewable.

Whether wife of deceased employee was entitled to award for injuries resulting in death which occurred outside of state involved the construction of Compensation Act, and if construction given by board was erroneous, section 19 permitted review. Friedman Mfg. Co. v. Industrial Commision of Illinois et al. (Ill.)..... Where reasons of appeals do not ask for correction or omission of some sp.. cific finding as to a subsidiary fact, or an addition of a material fact, not found. reasons of appeal alleging that evidence was insufficient to warrant commissioner in finding, etc.. do not present any assignable reasons of appeal. Rainey v. Tunnel Coal Co. et al. (Conn) Finding of Board upon undisputed facts is finding of law, though it may be styled finding of fact by Board and is reviewable-finding as to whether employee is entitled to compensation as matter of law is reviewable. Bates & Rogers Const. Co. et al. v. Allen (Ky.).. Whether insurance association, subscribers or agent had notice of injury, whether claim had not been filed as required, whether failure to file was due to mistake or other reasonable cause and whether employee had received injury in course of employment were questions of fact as to which appeal will not lie. In re Pass' Case (Mass.)

Findings of referee, affirmed by Board that condition of claimant's hands as result of accident constituted permanent loss of their use was a fact found and not conclusion of law reviewable on appeal. Cartin v. Standard Tin Plate Co. (Pa.)

Under act no appeal from award of $40 will lie. Essington et al. v. Bowman (Ind.) Compensation Act does not authorize appeal from order of Board approving or disapproving attorney's fee. Galvin v. Brown (Ind.) (32).

Under Compensation Law subjecting appeals from determinations of Commission to practice applicable to appeals in civil actions, following death of claimant, awarded compensation, substitution must be had of representative of estate, before appeal by employer and insurer from award

26

21

801

567

458

91

686

21

227

719

738

778

442

445

of Commission to Appellate Division can be heard. Waite V E. W. Bliss Co. et al. (N. Y.)

(3%). Right of review.

509

Where notice and copy of decision of board were sent and received by employer on certain day, and no writ of certiorari was sued out or sult in chancery commenced within 20 days thereafter, decision of board became conclusive. Friedman Mfg. Co. v. Industrial Commission of Illinois et (Ill.)

al.

(3%). Proceedings for appeal or other form of review. Act requires that one desiring review of award by full board make application therefor within seven days, regardless of when he received notice-applicant cannot waive provisions of section requiring application for review to be made within that period-board not authorized to extend time for filing application for review beyond period fixed by Act-fact that secretary of Board informed employer that review could not be had would not justify further delay of 21 days in filing an application. Jefferson Hotel Co. v. Young (Ind.).......

(4.) Presentation and reservations of grounds of review. Objection that employee was awarded additional compensation by arbitrator for minor operation found necessary because first operation was not wholly successful. forfeited his right to compensation, or some part thereof, by refusal to submit to second operation is waived by failure to assign it as ground to review before Industrial Commission. Chicago Steel Foundry Co. v.. Industrial Commission et al. (II.) Employee's act in going to lunch is incident to employment, hough dinner hour is not paid for by employer and injury during such business arises out of employment, rule not applying where employee chooses to go to dangerous place where employment does not necessarily carry himplaintiff in error cannot complain of incompetency of evidence, first excluded by workmen's compensation arbitrator on her objection, who subsequently brought it out herself on cross-examination of witness without even having made motion to exclude. H. W. Nelson R. Const. Co. v. Industrial Commission of Illinois et al (Ill.) Necessary that party object to hearsay evidence in order to overcome presumption that he consented to admission and consideration. Hege & Co. et al. v. Tompkins et al. (Ind.)

(4%). Record.

...

Where findings of subsidiary facts on which commissioner based his conclusions stand uncorrected on record they furnish the only basis of facts for testing the correctness of his conclusions and conclusion that claimant's conduct in not consulting physician until two weeks after injury was not unreasonable was correct when tested by findings of subsidiary facts uncorrected on record-where none of reasons of appeal ask for corrections of any specific finding of subsidiary facts there is no occasion for certified transcript of evidence-on appeal superior court may, by order in nature of writ of certiorari, require the whole or any part of transcript of evidence to be certified up and made part of appeal record. Rainey v. Tunnel Coal Co. et al. (Conn.).

(5). Trial or review.

21

271

590

605

451

227

Province of Board to draw inferences from facts proven and on appeal it will be assumed that Board drew those permissible deductions of fact that support award. Bachman v. Waterman (Ind.). 115 Recourse to rights and remedies permitted under federal act-point not having been raised before Commission it will be presumed notice of claim · was given. Cimmino v. John T. Clark & Son et al. (N. Y.)...... 178 On appeal from order of Board denying petition of carrier to set aside order approving agreement on ground of fraud it will be assumed that there was no fraud where there was no finding on that issue, and facts found are not sufficient to force inference of fraud-it will be presumed in absence of finding to contrary that there was no rule of board that hearings regarding approval of agreement be formally set for hearing and that notice be served on carrier. Atna Life Ins. Co. v. Shivley et al. (Ind.).... 261 Contention that imposition of penalty, pursuant to Act upon defendant employers for failure to report accident, is wrong, will not be considered by reviewing court, where order made by board makes no reference to penalty, court being concerned only with orders made by Board. Gaffney v. Goodwillie Bros. (Mich.)

On review by full Board of award made by one member, admission of additional evidence was discretionary and action of Board in that regard not subject to review, unless record shows abuse of discretion. Consumers' Co. v. Ceislik (Ind.)

Where referee's adjudication contains underlying findings of fact which either negative or fail to support his ultimate findings, error of law is presented which may be reviewed on appeal. Flucker v. Carnegie Steel Co. (Pa.)

Whether defendant railway was a common or private carrier under Compensation Act is question of law and appellate court is not bound by

315

620

780

decision of Industrial Commission.
& Transfer Ry. Co. et al (Wis.)..

Questions of fact.

(7).
Where there is some evidence to sustain award it will not be disturbed on
appeal. Pedlow v. Swartz Electric Co. (Ind.)..
The act as amended does not give Appellate Court power to weigh evidence,
although member of board who heard evidence found for appellant, and
award from which appeal is prosecuted was made by other two members
of board-where evidence as to whether refusal to permit operation was
such misconduct as to deprive decedent's dependents of benefit of act
was clearly open to more than one inference, determination of board
cannot be disturbed on appeal-finding as to whether autopsy was neces-
sary to determine cause of death and whether demand therefor was made
within reasonable time based on conflicting evidence, will not be disturbed
on appeal-there was some evidence to support finding that strangulation
of intestines which caused death resulted from hernia, which was caused
by strain resulting from master's work. Vonnegut Hardware Co. et al.
v. Rose et al. (Ind.)..
Finding of board as to extent of disability from injury being a legitimate
conclusion from facts proved by competent evidence, is conclusive on
Supreme Court. Scully v. Industrial Commission of Illinois (Ill.)..
Findings and award of Commission manifestly supported by competent evi-
dence may not be lawfully overturned on appeal. Employers' Mut. Ins.
Co. et al. v. Industrial Commission of Colorado et al. (Col.)....
It not being contended that any one engaged in the administration of Com-
pensation Act was guilty of fraud or misconduct, findings of fact of
Board cannot be reviewed or set aside. Nelson v. Kentucky River Stone
& Sand Co. (Ky.)..
Decisions of Board on questions of fact stand on same footing as verdict of
jury or finding of judge and are not subject to review except to determine
whether there is any evidence to support them-weight and credibility of
testimony as to any causal connection between injury to decedent and
tuberculosis which resulted fatally 18 for Board. McCarthy's Case

(Mass.)
Findings of Board of all questions of fact are final and cannot be set
aside, if there is any evidence to support them-whether deceased servant
received injury which caused death and whether injury arose out of
employment were questions of fact for Board-where on question whether
deceased servant's death was caused by strain of swinging heavy sledge-
hammer, thereby injuring and weakening an already diseased heart, or
was matter of speculation and conjecture, evidence was conflicting, finding
of Board must stand. Weatherbee's Case. In re Massachusetts Bonding

& Ins. Co. (Mass.).
One question to be decided is whether claimants were dependent on deceased
child held, thus showing point was considered and passed on at hearings,
such point is open on appeal, though no request was made respecting it.
Dembinski's Case. Appeal of Employers' Liability Assur. Corporation
(Mass.)

If there is any competent evidence fairly tending to support claim reviewing
court cannot consider weight of evidence. nor reverse because contrary
to preponderance of testimony. Bergstrom v. Industrial Commission et
al. (Ill.)
As commission has no jurisdiction to apply act to persons not within its
provisions. evidence on question of jurisdiction may, contrary to general
rule, be reviewed by courts. Thede Bros et al. v. Industrial Commission
et al. (Ill..)
As to whether employee killed by falling down stairway was intoxicated, is
question of fact, in proceedings under act, where evidence is contradict-
ory and will not be reviewed-duty of aribtrator and commission to
fairly and impartially consider and weigh all evidence presented and
make their findings in accordance with preponderance of evidence and
their conclusions on questions of fact are not reviewable. Lefens et al.
v. Industrial Commission et al. (Ill.)
Where Industrial Commission made award for death of servant courts in
their review are restricted to determination whether there is any evi-
dence to show that death arose out of and in course of servant's employ-
ment. Smith-Lohr Coal Mining Co. V. Industrial Commission et al
(Ill.)
Where there was competent evidence tending fairly to prove that deceased
employee contributed to support of parents so as to entitle them to com-
penseation under act. the sufficiency of evidence cannot be reviewed-
held there was competent evidence to show that deceased who was
minor child, had wi in four years previous to injury contributed to sup-
port of parents so as to sustain award. Metal Stampings Corporation
v. Industrial Commission et al. (III.)
Finding in applicant's favor on question of change of condition must be given
same effect as verdict of jury or finding of court in ordinarily civil action
-where evidence as to whether applicant is suffering from depressed men-
tal condition as result of injuries is conflicting court will not weigh evi-
dence. Kingan & Co., Limited. v. Ossam (Ind.).
Where there is evidence which would lead reasonable men to conclude as did
the Board on question of daughter's dependency in fact, under Act, Ap-
pellate Court is not at liberty to disturb such conclusion. Schwartz v.
Gerding & Aumann Bros. et al

(Ind.)

36

42

30

91

132

141

147

151

232

242

246

250

258

276

282

Findings of board must be upheld by court on appeal unless unwarranted by evidence and there being substantial evidence sufficient to support facts the same must stand. Indianapolis Light & Heat Co. V. Fitzwater (Ind.) That reviewing court is satisfied that it would not reach conclusion reached by Board is not conclusive in determining whether there is testimony supporting finding and conclusion of Board-disputed question being whether accident caused employee's illness and death, award will not Be set aside by reviewing court, where, although testimony cannot be harmonized, there is ground for saying that Board had before it some evidence tending to prove that accident set up train of physical disturbance, affecting an existing pathological condition in such a way as to cause death. Gaffney v. Goodwille Bros. (Mich.) Board is trier of facts and weighs conflicting testimony medical as well as lay, having province to draw legitimate inferences from established facts and to weigh probabilities from them, though inferences must be from established facts, an inference may not be built upon inference. Ginsberg v. Burroughs Adding Mach. Co. (Mich.). Where referee found deceased reached place of work in time to resume work during regular working hours conclusion of fact as to manner of death was for compensation authorities, and when made by referee and affirmed by Board not reversible by court-as act defines "injury by accident in course of employment" question of law is whether underlying findings of fact are sufficient to bring case within such definition, but that does not warrant court's interference-where tribunal charged with finding facts has considered all attending circumstances as against presumptions arising out of other facts favoring claimant, controlling finding that employee was killed in particular manner, reasonably indicated by circumstances found cannot be reversed. Flucker v. Carnegie Steel Co. (Pa.) Question whether workman is injured by accident arising out of employment may be question of law or one primarily of fact or mixed question of law and fact. Borck v. Simon J. Murphy Co. (Mich.) Findings of fact of Board stand if there is any evidence to support them and Board was at liberty so far as review is concerned to refuse to give credit to any part of evidence not, in their opinion, entitled to credit. In re Pass' Case (Mass.)

In considering whether findings reported by referee are sufficient to bring case within term "course of employment" court will keep in mind the liberal construction placed on such statutory definition and power of compensation authorities to find facts from direct proof, circumstantial evidence or inference. Haddock v. Edgewater Steel Co. et al. (Pa.)... Supreme court may review ultimate or controlling findings of referee of Board when material underlying facts indicate the character of evidence upon which ultimate or controlling findings rest. Wolford V. Geisel Moving & Storage Co. (Pa.)

Finding of Board on question of fact is final, unless there was no competent evidence from which fact might have been found. Scott v. O. A. Hankinson & Co. et al. (Mich.)

Findings of Board upon disputed facts are not reviewable. Bates & Rogers
Const. Co. et al. v. Allen (Ky.)

Findings of fact by Commission on conflicting evidence are conclusive on
courts. San Francisco-Oakland Terminal Rys. v. Industrial Accident
Commission (Cal.)
Finding of referee adopted by Board is absolutely conclusive upon Supreme
Court. Messer v. Manufacturers' Light & Heat Co. et al. (Pa.)..
Where it cannot be said that finding of Board that subscriber or agent did
not have knowledge of injury to employee as soon as practicable after
occurrence was not warranted as matter of law, it must stand on appeal
from decree of superior court affirming denial of compensation. Frier's
Case. (Mass.)

Finding of Commission that death of employee had resulted from injuries, when supported by evidence is conclusie on courts. Holmes v. Communipaw Steel Co. et al. (N. Y.)

Whether physical ailments of female employee had any causal connection
with fall from swivel chair in which she was sitting in course of em-
ployment was question of fact, decision of which was wholly for Board,
whose conclusion cannot be reversed. Berman's Case. In re Gulf Re-
fining Co. In re Travelers' Ins. Co. (Mass.)..

If there is in the record any competent evidence upon which finding of Com-
mission can be based, Supreme Court will not weigh it-held competent
evidence tending to sustain finding that injury arose out of employment.
Chicago Steel Foundry Co. v. Industrial Commission et al. (II.).
Where evidence is conflicting and tends to support conclusion reached by
Board, Appellee Court will not disturb its finding. Indiana Car &
Equipment Co. v. Celetto (Ind.)...

Province of Board to weigh evidence and draw inferences. Schanning v.
Standard Castings Co. et al. (Mich.)

284

315

317

780

746

738

786

798

759

719

682

791

638

647

640

590

624

331

Province of Board to consider testimony and give it such weight 28 in its Judgment is proper. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Totzke et al. (Ind.)

448

Courts cannot review finding of fact of referee and Board. McCarl et al. v. Borough of Houston (Pa.)

788

Where referee and compensation board, after considering all circumstances. concluded that deceased had neither been discharged nor quit his job,

it was reversible error for court to set aside such decision. Dainty v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Co. (Pa.)

784

444

478

It is the exclusive province of Board to weigh evidence and determine therefrom in first instance whether injury arose out of employment-evidence to manner in which employee was injured held such as to permit difference of opinion so that findings would not be disturbed-where evidence as to nature of injury would permit affirmative or negative finding court on appeal must uphold conclusion of Board. Ansted Spring & Axle Co. v. Ayres (Ind.) Whether servant employed in United States Military cantonment while on way from sleeping quarters, provided by contractor, was injured in course of employment was for jury-whether day-laborer engaged in cutting, piling, and burning brush. etc., was engaged in "extrahazardous employment" and whether he was guilty of "willful misconduct" in effort to climb on side of motor truck while moving was for jury. F. B. Beasman & Co. et al. v. Butler (Md.) Finding of facts by Board stands on same footing as finding of trial court or verdict of jury and when sustained by competent evidence is binding on appellate court. Hege & Co. et al. v. Tompkins et al. (Ind.).. Where Commission had power to hold hearing, take evidence, etc., its findings, though erroneous, are binding on Court of Appeal. court's only power being in case where Commission exceeds its authority. Crosardo et al. v. Industrial Accident Commission et al. (Cal.) Supreme Court does not concern itself with determination of questions of fact when there is any competent testimony supporting conclusions of Board. Smith v. Battjes Fuel & Building Material Co. et al. (Mich.). 333 Board like jury may draw reasonable inferences from facts and circumstances, and finding by Board stands upon same footing as finding of trial court or verdict of jury and when sustained by competent evidence is binding on court on appeal. Consumers' Co. v. Celslik (Ind.).. Where trial court concluded upon basis of rational inference, tantamount to legal proof, that servant's death arose out of employment, section of act requires an affirmance of judgment. Manziano et al. v. Public Service Gas Co. (N. J.)

If claim of injured servant for payment in lump sum was denied on erroneous theory as to power of Commission to order such payments in cases of permanent total disability, claimant was prejudiced though Commission also denied application for lump settlement on ground that it would not be for best interests of parties. Karoly v. Industrial Commission of Colorado et al. (Col.).. Admission of incompetent evidence by Industrial Board will not operate to reverse its award, where there is any competent evidence to support it. Kingan & Co., Limited v. Ossam (Ind.). Supreme Court should not reverse award of compensation for admission of hearsay evidence, if there is competent evidence to sustain board's finding Ginsberg v. Burroughs Adding Mach. Co. (Mich.)..

Mere fact that incompetent evidence ir heard is no cause for reversal where there was some competent evidence which tended to establish every material fact-Board awarded compensation for maximum period of 500 weeks instead of 300 weeks. as asked by claimant, does not afford ground for reversal, duration being limited as law provides and appellant not having shown that its rights were in any way prejudiced. Consumers' Co. v. Ceislik (Ind:)..

Supreme Court will not interfere with award of Board if there was any com petent testimony upon which to base award, though improper evidence admitted. Hanna v. Michigan Steel Castings Co. et al. (Mich.) Admission of incompetent evidency Industrial Board will not operate to reverse award if there be any basis to support it. Hege & Co. et al. v. Tompkins et al. (Ind.)

(9). Determination and disposition of cause. Where board finds facts additional to those stated by referee and their correctness is conceded, Supreme Court may determine the issue upon facts so found. Gurski v. Susquehanna Coal Co. (Pa.)... If Board improperly allows appeal from decision of referee and affirms decision, Common Pleas Court has not jurisdiction upon appeal to reverse referee's decision and dismiss claim. Wise v. Borough of Cambridge Springs (Pa.)..

Under law unsworn opinion evidence, given without notice to employer or insurer that it was to be offered to Commission or that it was filed, and without opportunity to interrogate such witness or to make further proof to controvert such evidence, should not be considered by Commission and where it appears the findings and conclusion of Commission was based such opinion evidence award will be vacated and cause remanded. Flynn v. Ponca City Milling Co. et al. (Okla.).. Where record indicated that evidence could be procured to show average annual earning capacity of claimant's decedent or that of workman of same class in same locality, but claimant failed to make proof, it was error to apply 300-day rule. taking account only of wages of claimant's decedent received at time he was injured and for 6 weeks prior thereto. Campbell v. Cummer-Diggins Co. (Mich.)

451

419

620

488

98

276

317

620

322

451

73

196

519

.... 750