Maryland Casualty Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission

[575]

SHAW, J.,

pro

tem.

The petitioners seek to annul an order of the Industrial Accident Commission awarding compensation to Calvert Briley, an employee of petitioner California Lutheran Hospital, for an injury to his eyes. Briley was employed by the California Lutheran Hospital as a cook and testified that while he was engaged in his work as such cook he stooped over to look into the oven of a gas range, and that as he did so there was a gas explosion in the range and a blast of flame suddenly came out of the oven door and struck him in the right eye, burning the eye and some of the hair on his face around it and causing a sharp pain in the eye; that the eye immediately swelled shut and that he has not been able to see out of it since. He further testified that the flame did not strike his left eye and he then felt no pain in it, but that since the accident the sight of his left eye has gradually failed and that before the accident occurred his sight was good in both eyes. The Industrial Accident Commission found that Briley was “burned in

left

eye by flame from gas stove, causing injury to left eye, affecting the vision of both eyes.”

The petitioners contend, first, that the evidence does not show that Briley suffered any injury at all to either eye and hence does not support the finding on that point. The only direct testimony as to the accident is that of Briley, and petitioners’ argument is based upon an analysis of his testimony in an attempt to show that it is vague, uncertain, and contradictory. But, conceding it to be so, it was evidently believed by the Industrial Accident Commission, and their action in that respect is binding upon us, unless the facts testified to are inherently improbable or the inferences drawn from them are manifestly unreasonable, which we do not think can be said in this case. We notice that while Briley testified that the direct injury was to his right eye only and that there were apparent subsequent effects upon his left eye, the Commission found that the direct injury was to the left eye. The petitioners do not stress this discrepancy, and we are satisfied that it affords no ground for annulling the award. Briley’s application for compensation filed with the Industrial Accident Commission merely states that “right was totally blinded, left eye was partly blinded,” thus raising no issue as to which eye received the direct injury; and the answer filed