Opinion
Sept. 5, 1973.
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
John P. Moore, Atty. Gen., John E. Bush, Deputy Atty. Gen., Peter L. Dye, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent Industrial Commission of the State of Colo.
Vernon P. Playton, Denver, for petitioner.
Richard G. Fisher, Jr., Fred B. Dudley, Denver, for respondent Berkeley Moving and Storage.
PIERCE, Judge.
This is a workmen's compensation case arising out of claimant's injury in an industrial accident. There is no dispute between the parties as to his entitlement to workmen's compensation benefits; only the amount of the award is in question.
The issues before us are: 1) Was the claimant entitled to an award for permanent disability; and, 2) Did the Commission err in decreasing the wage rate upon which his award for temporary disability was computed?
As to the first issue, the Commission concluded and made specific findings to the effect that the claimant had not proved entitlement to an award for permanent disability. The record reveals that he was examined by three physicians. The doctor who initially examined him submitted a report shortly after the accident indicating no permanent injury. The second doctor made no mention of permanent disability in his report. The third doctor examined claimant approximately four months after the accident and made a statement in his testimony to the effect that at that time claimant had a 3% Disability. His further testimony, however, was definite that this finding was not to indicate any permanent disability since, with proper treatment, a complete recovery should result. At the time of that examination, claimant was still under the care of one of the other physicians. Under these facts, there was a sufficient basis for the Commission's conclusion that claimant was not entitled to an award for permanent disability and we will not disturb this determination on appeal. Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Industrial Commission, 105 Colo. 22, 94 P.2d 689.
As to the second issue, the respondents have been quite candid in admitting that the record contains only the conclusion of the referee as to the amount of the average weekly wage to be used in computing the award of temporary disability. There are no specific findings by the Commission as to the method of computation used in this case under the applicable sections of C.R.S.1963, 81--8--1. Rather, the findings here constitute mere recitations of evidence taken and are not sufficient to meet the requirement of stating findings of fact imposed by 1971 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 81--14--6(2). State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Foulds, 167 Colo. 123, 445 P.2d 716. In the absence of the requisite evidentiary findings, this court is afforded no basis upon which it can properly review the Commission's final order, See Womack v. Industrial Commission, 168 Colo. 364, 451 P.2d 761, and we must therefore remand the case to the Commission for the necessary finding. Tague v. Coors Porcelain Co., 29 Colo.App. 226, 481 P.2d 424.
That portion of the Commission's order denying an award for permanent injury is affirmed and the question of determining the proper computation of the wage rate is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
SILVERSTEIN, C.J., and ENOCH, J., concur.