(Download) "Wieri v. Anaconda Cop. Min. Co." by Supreme Court of Montana # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Wieri v. Anaconda Cop. Min. Co.
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 26, 1945
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 64 KB
Description
Workmens Compensation ? Mines and Mining ? Petition for Lump Sum Settlement ? Proper Denial ? Appeal and Error ? Presumption that Decision of Trial Court Correct ? New Trial ? Newly Discovered Evidence ? Insufficiency of Affidavits. Workmens Compensation ? Mines and Mining ? Lump Sum Settlement after years of compensation paid ? Denial of Petition on Appeal to District Court affirmed. 1. While at work, a miner sustained a fracture of his left leg between the knee and the hip, the accident occurring in May, 1931. He was sent to a hospital which was under contract to furnish medical care for defendant companys workmen, the company working under Plan 1 of the Workmens Compensation Act, where he stayed until December of that year, when he went to his home, dissatisfied with the treatment accorded him. He received compensation at the rate of $15 a week from the day of the accident for 272 weeks which as found by the Industrial Accident Board, was for 200 weeks more than the character of his disability justified. He then filed his petition for a lump sum settlement, alleging total disability. At the hearing of the petition there was medical testimony introduced by defendant company, contradicted by claimant, that he was malingering and was able to walk with the aid of a crutch but refused to do so, with resultant atrophy because of disuse of the leg. The Board denied the petition for a lump - Page 525 sum settlement and the district court on appeal did likewise. Judgment of the district court affirmed on appeal to the supreme court. Same ? Appeal ? Presumption that Decision of District Court Correct. 2. In entering upon a review of a decision of the district court, the supreme court indulges the presumption that the decree of that court is correct, and its judgment will not be set aside unless there is a clear preponderance of the evidence against it; the province of the supreme court being but to ascertain whether there is substantial evidence to sustain the conclusions of the lower court. New Trial ? Newly Discovered Evidence ? Affidavits Showing mere Cumulative Evidence Insufficient. 3. To warrant the granting of a new trial on the ground of newly discovtred evidence, it must be made to appear that there is reasonable probability that upon a retrial the alleged newly discovered evidence will change the result; and if affidavits submitted to support the motion for new trial do no more than establish evidence of a mere cumulative nature, they are insufficient. Same ? Motion lies in Sound Discretion of Trial Court. 4. Granting a motion for new trial lies within the sound discretion of the lower court, and its order will be reversed only on a showing of manifest abuse thereof.
 "Wieri v. Anaconda Cop. Min. Co." by Supreme Court of Montana # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}