(dissenting).
“In reviewing an award of the commission denying compensation it must appear that the evidence is such, that, as a matter of law, the award of the commission must be set aside. The petitioner must therefore prove that upon no reasonable consideration of the evidence could the commission have reached its conclusion.” Korff v. Charles Luke Const. Corporation, 69 Ariz. 312, 314, 213 P.2d 471, 472.
If the settled rule of law is to be adhered to, this case must rest upon the proposition that upon no reasonable consideration of the evidence could the Industrial Commission find that the death of John Vernon Revles was not caused or contributed to by the conditions of his employment.
Since the only medical expert was Doctor Scharf, his testimony is crucial. The majority quote from his autopsy report:
“ * * * it is very likely that the same conditions were strongly influential in precipitating the terminal cardiac failure.” (Emphasis supplied.)
And from his testimony,
“ * * * it seems a good probability that the conditions * * * may very *78well have precipitated the cardiac decompensation * * (Emphasis supplied.)
Doctor Scharf does not say that it is a good probability that the conditions precipitated the cardiac decompensation. He says it seems a good probability that the conditions may very well have. The uncertainty in these two statements of Doctor Scharf is emphasized by his other testimony. At various times he testified:
“A. I would say that the episodes leading to his death might very well have been precipitated by the conditions under which he was working. (Emphasis supplied.)
******
“Q. It is very likely that the same conditions were strongly influential in precipitating the terminal failure. Then under those conditions, you would have to say that it was a possible cause of death under all these facts?
A. Yes, I would.
******
“Q. It is possible, Doctor, that the death of this individual could have been caused by something else other than working in the heat on June 27th; is that correct? A. Entirely possible.
* * * * * *
“Q. You could not say that that was the only reason or the actual cause of death by the same reasoning? A. No.
“Q. But you could not say that it was not the cause of death? A. That’s correct.
******
“Q. * * * If given the facts that you have heard here today, assuming the clinical history that you have assumed, is it possible, Doctor, that this man had a heart condition which would have resulted in death at July 26, 1958, without any precipitating or intervening incidents? A. Yes.
“Q. Is it possible that these arteries were becoming more and more occluded, like thrombosis was forming and that death would have happened at any rate? Is that possible? A. It is not only possible, it is exceedingly likely, * * * from the condition as we saw it, it is a strong likelihood that this would have occurred, death from cardiac failure, regardless of the conditions under which the man was working.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Doctor Scharf says on the one hand that it was the “possible” cause of death, and even that it “might very well have been.” On the other hand, he states that “it is not only possible, it is exceedingly likely”, “that death would have happened at any rate.” The doctor cannot, will not, say what the majority of this court is saying— *79that the working conditions caused or contributed to the death of Revles.
Here, where the evidence is pregnant with uncertainty, I am of the opinion that there are reasonable considerations upon which the Commission could have reached its conclusion.
In Gronowski v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 81 Ariz. 363, 366, 306 P.2d 285, 286-287, we said:
“Petitioner contends that the Cabarga case is identical with the case at bar and since we ruled that the commission could allow compensation in that case, we should rule that we will compel compensation in this case. Such an argument is not impressive. On the same evidence we might well permit the commission to award compensation but not necessarily compel it to do so. For us to dictate that the commission must find a fact, the evidence must be such that there is but one possible inference to be drawn therefrom.”
In Cross v. Industrial Commission, 81 Ariz. 222, 225, 303 P.2d 710, 712, we said:
“It appears from the foregoing that according to the medical evidence causal connection was a possibility but there was also a possibility that the accident did not cause or contribute to his injury. We do not feel that under this state of the record, we would be justified in saying that the evidence was such as compelled the commission to adopt one of several possibilities and thereby require the commission to decide that the petitioner has by uncontradicted evidence proven that the injury was caused or contributed to by the accident.”
We have had cause to comment upon somewhat similar testimony of a medical expert in Western Truck Lines v. Berry, 53 Ariz. 216, 224, 87 P.2d 484, 487. We said:
“It is, of course, the rule that it is not sufficient in an action for damages based on negligence that plaintiff should show that a certain physical injury might have been caused by the negligence of defendant. It is incumbent upon him to show that it has been so caused.” (Emphasis supplied.)
In Ideal Food Products Co. v. Rupe, 76 Ariz. 175, 178, 261 P.2d 992, 994, we said:
“The general rule is that medical testimony as to the mere possibility that an accident has a causal connection with an existing condition is insufficient to warrant a finding that the accident caused the condition.”
The finding of the Commission was “that the medical evidence indicates that the disability from which John Vernon Revles died was not the result of any injury by *80accident on June 27, 1958.” It is the uniform holding of this court that the burden of proof is on an applicant to show affirmatively all the material elements necessary to sustain an award. Nor is it necessary for the Industrial Commission to disprove an asserted claim. Harrington v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 84 Ariz. 356, 328 P.2d 311; Sheridan v. Industrial Commission, 84 Ariz. 264, 327 P.2d 90; Smith v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 82 Ariz. 75, 308 P.2d 398.
The Commission in weighing the testimony of Doctor Scharf could find, because of the uncertainty in his testimony, that the cause of death was not established to its satisfaction. A finding of the Commission must be given the same consideration as that of a jury or a trial judge, West Chandler Farms Co. v. Industrial Commission, 64 Ariz. 383, 173 P.2d 84, and is conclusive upon this court unless it has no support in the evidence. Phelps Dodge Corporation v. DeWitt, 63 Ariz. 379, 162 P.2d 605. The fair import of all the language used implies no more than a possibility. Certainly had the witness intended to say that there was a causal relation, or very probably was, he could have, and would have, said so for he had ample opportunity to do so. Under the announced law of this state, a judgment of the triers of facts should not be supplanted by the opinions of the members of this court.
The award should he affirmed.