Opinion
No. 7871.
June 16, 1953.
APPEAL FROM INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD.
E.B. Smith, Walter M. Oros, Boise, for appellant.
Chas. E. Horning, Sennett Taylor, Wallace, Paul C. Keeton, Lewiston, for respondent.
The Occupational Disease Compensation Law is not a limitation upon, nor in derogation of, the Workmen's Compensation Law, but is supplementary thereto, and in no wise does away with any right to compensation benefits theretofore provided. The Occupational Disease Compensation Law merely enlarges the scope of the Workmen's Compensation Law. Goaslind v. City of Pocatello, 61 Idaho 435, 102 P.2d 650; Habera v. Polaris Mining Co., 62 Idaho 54, 102 P.2d 297; Foote v. Hecla Mining Co., 62 Idaho 79, 108 P.2d 1030; Dobbs v. Bureau of Highways, 63 Idaho 290, 120 P.2d 263.
A personal injury caused by accident, within the meaning of the Idaho Workmen's Compensation Law, must be a personal injury caused by an unexpected, undesigned, and unlooked for mishap, or untoward event, happening suddenly and connected with the industry in which it occurs, and which can be definitely located as to time when and place where it occurred. Section 72-201, Idaho Code; Davis v. Sunshine Mining Co., 73 Idaho 94, 245 P.2d 822; Shumaker v. Hunter Lease, 72 Idaho 173, 238 P.2d 425.
Appellant's appeal, from the order of the Industrial Accident Board denying compensation, urges the evidence does not support the denial of the award and shows appellant is entitled to compensation because either the tuberculosis, with which he is afflicted and thereby incapacitated for work, so suddenly appeared as to constitute an accident under Dobbs v. Bureau of Highways, 63 Idaho 290, 120 P.2d 263, and/or the evidence shows he has silicosis to a degree which was an essential factor in connection with the tuberculosis in causing his disability — thus an occupational disease under Section 72-1220, Idaho Code.
Several assignments of error are made, but only two are essential, both questions of fact. First, whether there is evidence to sustain the Board in considering there was not a sufficiently sudden onslaught of the tuberculosis to constitute an accident; and, second, the evidence is sufficient to support the finding that silicosis was not and is not an essential factor in causing, in connection with tuberculosis, claimant's disability.
As suggested by appellant, these are basically medical questions. Two doctors testified in support of appellant's position and two doctors testified to the contrary; thus, there was a conflict in the evidence.
The prerogative of the Board is, by statute, constitution, and decisions of this Court, to determine such conflicts and determine the facts, and there is ample evidence to support their denial of the award.
There are no errors of law; therefore, the order denying compensation must be and is affirmed.
PORTER, C.J., TAYLOR and THOMAS, JJ., and McQUADE, District Judge, concur.