Glodowski v. Industrial Commission
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
Appellant contends that the finding, “The silicosis from which the applicant suffers is nondisabling in nature” is not such a finding as sec. 102.18, Stats., demands. He insists that to be valid the findings must contain more detail to demonstrate that the silicosis is nondisabling and, as it stands, the so-called finding is not a finding of fact but is a mere conclusion. The details which appellant wants are evidentiary facts upon which the ultimate fact of disability or nondisability might depend; but the commission is not required by statute to make findings of evidentiary facts. The facts…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hills Dry Goods Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
- Beem v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1943
- Sheehan v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
- Gerue v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
- Tuohy v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Lewellyn v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
- C.L. v. OlsonCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1987
- Indianhead Truck Lines, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
- Town of Russell Volunteer Fire Department v. Labor & Industry Review CommissionCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1998
- United Wisconsin Insurance v. Labor & Industry Review CommissionCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1999
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.