From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Cardillo

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Mar 27, 1939
104 F.2d 254 (D.C. Cir. 1939)

Opinion

No. 7215.

Argued March 8, 1939.

Decided March 27, 1939.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

Suit by Maryland Casualty Company against Frank A. Cardillo, Deputy Commissioner, United States Employees' Compensation Commission, District of Columbia Compensation District, to review compensation award to James William Devers, claimant. From a judgment of dismissal, the Maryland Casualty Company appeals.

Affirmed.

Edwin A. Swingle and Ernest A. Swingle, both of Washington, D.C., for appellant.

David A. Pine, U.S. Atty., Allen J. Krouse, Asst. U.S. Atty., Joseph A. Cantrel, Z. Lewis Dalby, and Charles T. Branham, all of Washington, D.C., for appellees.

Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and STEPHENS and MILLER, Associate Justices.


The deputy commissioner awarded compensation to appellee Devers for an injury sustained while working as a carpenter on the Library of Congress annex. The insurance carrier filed its bill in the District Court for a review of the order. On hearing the court dismissed the bill, and the carrier appealed to this court.

The appeal is wholly based on the ground that there was no evidence to support the finding of continuing injury. We have examined the evidence carefully and are of opinion that there is enough in the record to justify the commissioner's conclusion and order. It is of no consequence that we might have reached a different conclusion, or that there is a sharp conflict in the testimony, or even that the evidence preponderates strongly against the claimant. Under the statute we cannot substitute our judgment for the commissioner's judgment, nor can we weigh the evidence. As we have many times said, on questions of fact as to injury the findings of the commissioner, when supported by substantial evidence, are final. See Powell v. Hoage, 61 App.D.C. 99, 57 F.2d 766; Hoage v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corporation, 62 App.D.C. 77, 64 F.2d 715; Employers' Liability Assur. Corporation v. Hoage, 63 App.D.C. 53, 69 F.2d 227; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hoage, 64 App.D.C. 185, 76 F.2d 435; Employers' Liability Assur. Corporation v. Hoage, 67 App.D.C. 245, 91 F.2d 318.

D.C. Code 1929, tit. 19, secs. 11 and 12, 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 note, making applicable to the District of Columbia the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 44 Stat. 1424 et seq., 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Cardillo

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Mar 27, 1939
104 F.2d 254 (D.C. Cir. 1939)
Case details for

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Cardillo

Case Details

Full title:MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. v. CARDILLO et al

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: Mar 27, 1939

Citations

104 F.2d 254 (D.C. Cir. 1939)

Citing Cases

Groom v. Cardillo

We cannot substitute our judgment for the Deputy's judgment, nor can we weigh the evidence. Potomac Electric…

Granholm v. Cardillo

True there is evidence in the record that would have supported a finding favorable to appellant. But there is…