(Download) "Andrews v. Bechtel Construction Co." by Supreme Court of Kansas " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Andrews v. Bechtel Construction Co.
- Author : Supreme Court of Kansas
- Release Date : January 06, 1954
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 59 KB
Description
The opinion of the court was delivered by This was a workmen's compensation case. The trial court made
findings of fact and allowed compensation. Respondents bring the
case here and contend (1) the evidence was insufficient to
sustain the court's finding that claimant's disability was a
direct result of an accidental injury suffered in the course of
his employment and (2) they were prejudiced for want of statutory
notice of the injury. The pertinent part of the court's findings
to which respondents take exception is as follows:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"The court further finds that the claimant, Ott
Andrews, on September 17, 1952, met with personal
injury by accident which arose out of and in the
course of his employment with Bechtel Construction
Company, the respondent, and which resulted in his
temporary total disability for a period of 10.43
compensable weeks, . . .
"The court further finds that the claimant failed
to show notice to the employer of the accident,
stating time, place and particulars thereof, within
ten days as specified by Section 44-520 of the
General Statutes of Kansas 1949, but that respondent
has failed to prove that it has been prejudiced
thereby.
"The court further finds that, when claimant
reported his injury to his foreman, the foreman
suggested that claimant go to the company doctor but
the foreman did not know the doctor's name; that
claimant then stated to his foreman that he would
rather be at home, that he might be laid up for some
time; that the foreman made no effort under the
circumstances to seasonably provide the services of a
physician or surgeon and hospital treatment,
including nursing, and made no objection to claimant
returning to Tulsa, his home, and procuring medical,
hospital and nursing services."
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Under G.S. 1949, 44-556, appellate jurisdiction of this court
in compensation cases is confined to reviewing questions of law
only. In doing so, it is necessary to determine whether the
record contains any evidence which tends to support the judgment
rendered and in so considering, this court is required to view
all testimony in the light most favorable to the prevailing party
below. If when so considered, the record contains any evidence
which supports the
[175 Kan. 887]