DONALDSON, Justice.
This appeal places in issue the sufficiency of the findings of fact and conclusions of law entered by the Industrial Commission of the State of Idaho in the application of Ralph Ellison, the appellant. For the reasons stated in this opinion, the Order of the Industrial Commission is reversed and remanded.
The appellant worked underground at Bunker Hill continuously from 1955 to 1969. In 1969 he began working at the smelter. His employment immediately prior to 1955 consisted of fourteen years as a salesman. He was continuously exposed to hardrock dust while working underground. His only other exposure to such dust was for three days, occurring thirty-one years before. The appellant claims that as of August 15, 1971, he has been totally disabled as a result of silicosis caused by his employment at Bunker Hill.
Upon appellant's application for workmen's compensation, the Industrial Commission held the necessary hearing. The Commission entered findings of fact and a conclusion of law leading to the Order that the application for compensation be dismissed. From that Order this appeal is taken.
On such appeal this Court is empowered to review only questions of law. Nenoff v. Culligan Soft Water, 95 Idaho 834, 521 P.2d 658 (1974); Madron v. Green Giant Co., 94 Idaho 747, 497 P.2d 1048 (1972). However, as we stated in Nenoff, such review is impossible when the Industrial Commission fails in its function as factfinder. Here, as in Nenoff, the Commission's findings of fact are merely "a recitation of the allegations, contentions, and testimony of the parties." 95 Idaho 834, 836, 521 P.2d 658, 660. This failure to resolve the factual conflicts in the evidence prevents this Court from fulfilling its constitutional obligation of evaluating the conclusions of law entered by the Commission and to review the basis of the Commission's decision.
Therefore the Order is reversed, and the matter remanded to the Commission for additional proceedings and either party may petition the Commission to reopen the case and to submit additional evidence. Costs to appellant.
SHEPARD, C.J., and McQUADE, McFADDEN and BAKES, JJ., concur.