Beels v. Department of Labor and Industries of State of Washington, 25067.
Decision Date | 23 July 1934 |
Docket Number | 25067. |
Citation | 178 Wash. 301,34 P.2d 917 |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Parties | BEELS v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES OF STATE OF WASHINGTON. |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Clallam County; John M. Ralston, Judge.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Ida Beels, widow. From a judgment of the superior court awarding compensation the Department of Labor and Industries of the State of Washington appeals.
Affirmed.
G. W Hamilton and Browder Brown, both of Olympia, for appellant.
John C Richards, of Everett, for respondent.
Walter Beels, a deputy sheriff of Clallam county, died January 14 1933, as the result of an injury sustained by him December 31, 1931, in the course of his employment as a county peace officer. No application was ever made to the department of labor and industries by or on behalf of Beels for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. No report, other than that filed by the widow, of the accident was made to the department. On or about March 1, 1933, which was less than two months subsequent to the date of Beels' death, and more than one year after the date upon which the injury occurred, the widow of the injured workman made application to the department (on a form supplied by it for reports of accidents) for compensation. That claim, so far as material, reads as follows:
An investigation of the claim by the department resulted in the entry of an order March 21, 1933, by the supervisor of the department that the claim 'has been unfavorably suspended for the reason that a claim was not filed within one year from the date of the alleged injury.' On April 21, 1933, the claimant applied for rehearing Before the joint board of the department '* * * for the following reasons, to-wit:
On April 24, 1933, three days after receipt of claimant's application for rehearing, the joint board entered an order reversing the action of the supervisor but rejecting the claim 'upon the grounds that the same is unauthorized by law.' That order, which reads as follows, recited that the joint board found that the 'Report of Accident' filed by Mrs. Beels 'constituted a claim by said widow':
'The above claim coming Before the Joint Board in Executive Session this date following careful review of all records containing all the proofs on file together with transcript of testimony as taken at hearing on None
'It was found that: This matter comes Before the Joint Board upon the application of the claimant to review the order of the Supervisor, unfavorably suspending the claim of Mrs. Ida Beels, widow of deceased workman, Walter Beels, upon the grounds that the same was not filed within one year from the date of alleged injury.
'That a review of the claim file reveals that on February 27, 1933, a claim was filed by Mrs. Ida Beels upon workman's report of accident form, reciting that on December 31, 1931, her husband had been injured while a deputy sheriff and that he went to the hospital on December 29, 1932, and died January 14, 1933; that the employer, the Clallam County certified the claimant strained himself on December 31, 1931; that no claim was filed by deceased, Walter Beels, within one year following the injury of December 31, 1931, or at any time prior to his death; that by reason thereof the statute of limitations has operated against the right of the deceased workman to file a claim and his surviving widow, Mrs. Ida Beels, has no right to file a claim for compensation because of the death of her husband as aforesaid;
That is to say, the joint board reversed the order of the supervisor suspending the claim of the widow 'upon the grounds that the same was not filed within one year from the date of alleged injury.' The joint board found that the workman's report of accident as filed by the widow 'constitutes a claim by said widow,' but that by reason of the failure of the deceased to file his claim within one year following the date of his injury, 'or at any time prior to his death,' the widow of the deceased 'has no right to file a claim for compensation because of the death of her husband.'
Trial in the superior court, on claimant's appeal thereto from the above-quoted order, resulted in judgment awarding to the claimant the compensation to which she, as widow of the workman, is entitled under Rem. Rev. Stat. § 7679.
Counsel for the department argue that, as the claim filed by the respondent was made on a form used only by workmen seeking payment for time loss or disability compensation, and as proof of death and proof of relationship were not filed with the claim as the statute...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fossum, Matter of
...employees.' One of the leading cases on this subject is a decision by the Washington Supreme Court in Beels v. Tje Department of Labor & Industries, 178 Wash. 301, 34 P.2d 917 (1934). A deputy sheriff had been injured on December 31, 1931. He died January 14, 1933, without filing any claim.......
-
Kovacs v. Dep't of Labor & Indus.
...after the lapse of one year from the date of injury for other injuries from the same fall were permitted); Beels v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 178 Wash. 301, 307, 34 P.2d 917 (1934) (finding a claim for benefits timely if filed not from within one year from the date of injury to spouse but ra......
-
Laird v. State of Vermont Highway Dept. And the Travelers Insurance Co.
...from the death of the husband and a decision favorable to the claimant widow therein was rendered. In the Ek case it was stated that the Beels was not in point because in the latter there was no adjudication binding on the claimant therein. It is questionable whether the holding in the Ek c......
-
Kilpatrick v. Department of Labor and Industries of State of Wash.
...131, 120 P.2d 858 (1942), McFarland v. Department of Labor & Indus., 188 Wash. 357, 62 P.2d 714 (1936), and Beels v. Department of Labor & Indus., 178 Wash. 301, 34 P.2d 917 (1934), the claimants argue a beneficiary's claim is separate and distinct from the worker's The claimants contend Pu......