Show URY AARO RING UPHElD Sustains Industrial I Commission omas omas' H. H Moray while in the thet ty of t the Mountain States rhone Aone company In Salt Lake red d an injury to his e eye e in De- De ler r Ho lIt was awarded court com com- t luon on by bv the Industrial com- com the partial loss of or sight Iwas dissatisfied with the almade by bv the commission and plied to the sun sun sun-em em court for tor fort t pot rot of review which w wawa w granted titer 1 lull 11 IOn of ot the thelin lin that proceeding the su- su pre preme a court affirmed the d decision of ot the commission I ISome Some time after alter the foregoing de- de cission had been published the plaintiff made a second application to the commission for additional compensation A hearing was duly had on that application and after atter a a. consideration of ot the evidence the commission made the following finding That the the- fundus of ot both the applicant is normal that if It the applicant sustained loss of ot vision following flash blindness existing for Cor a period of ot one year his funds could not be bo normal they normal they would shoW evidences of ot disease that there is no pathological condition present to causo loss of vision o in rte either eye as a result of the electric elec elec- electric e I Itric flash received December 2 21 i 1920 I As a a conclusion of ot law the commission commission com com- mission also found In I view of fo foh the h foregoing O finding g th the tho commission o s concludes o I gt that the decision rendered on the day dayot of ot April 1921 and later late reviewed and upheld by the supreme court of ot Utah should not be disturbed th that a t the applicants applicant's claim for foJ additional compensation should be denied In accordance with the foregoing finding and conclusion the commission commission commission commis commis- sion denied plaintiff the additional compensation prayed for Thereafter Thereafter There There- after atter a rehearing was granted and additional evidence was as submitted and after a a. consideration of all the evidence submitted b by both parties the commission made the following decision After Atter a a. careful review of ot the evidence submitted the commission concludes that it should not be Justified Justified Jus jus- in Jn disturbing the decisions heretofore rendered In this case From this conclusion Moray again asked the supreme court to review the case The result is the affirmation affirmation tion of the acts of the commission the opinion being written by Justice J. J E E. E Frick |