Cardillo v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 7171.
| Decision Date | 05 December 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 7171.,7171. |
| Parties | CARDILLO, Deputy Compensation Commissioner, et al. v. LIBERTY MUT. INS. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
David A. Pine, U. S. Atty., Allen J. Krouse, Asst. U. S. Atty., Z. Lewis Dalby, Chief Counsel, United States Employees' Compensation Commission, Charles T. Branham and Ward E. Boote, Associate Counsel, U. S. Employees' Compensation Commission, and James E. McCabe, all of Washington, D. C., for appellants.
Arthur J. Phelan, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and EDGERTON and VINSON, Associate Justices.
A question arises under the Employees' Compensation Act of the District of Columbia.1 Section 8, which is headed "Compensation for disability," requires the payment of various sums for various injuries; e. g. "In case of disability total in character but temporary in quality 66 2/3 per centum of the average weekly wages shall be paid to the employee during the continuance thereof." Section 7, which is headed "Medical service and supplies," requires the employer to furnish "medical, surgical, and other attendance or treatment * * * for such period as the nature of the injury or the process of recovery may require." Section 14 (m) provides: "The total compensation payable under this Act for injury or death shall in no event exceed the sum of $7,500." Appellant Cobb, an injured employee, has received less than $7,500 in compensation under Section 8; but the sum of the compensation so received and the amounts which have been expended for his benefit under Section 7 exceeds $7,500. The insurer has declined to continue compensation payments; the Deputy Commissioner has made a supplementary award against it, including a 20 per cent penalty, under Sec. 14 (f); and the District Court, at the suit of the insurer, has enjoined the enforcement of that award. The sole question on this appeal is whether expenditures for medical and similar benefits under Section 7 are to be counted in determining whether the $7,500 limit of "total compensation" fixed by Section 14 (m) has been reached.
Section 2 of the act, "Definitions," states in paragraph (12) that: "`Compensation' means the money allowance payable to an employee or to his dependents as provided for in this Act, and includes funeral benefits provided therein." This seems clearly to exclude the medical benefits of Section 7. The argument for the insurer rests on the fact, which is obvious, that certain sections of the act nevertheless use the term "compensation" in a sense which includes those benefits. Examples are Section 4 (a), which requires the employer to secure the payment of "the compensation payable under sections 7, 8, and 9," and Section 6 (a), which provides: "No compensation shall be allowed for the first seven days of the disability, except the benefits provided for in section 7." The argument proves nothing, for it is equally obvious that in certain other sections of the act, as well as in the definition, "compensation" excludes medical benefits. Examples are Section 15 (a), which forbids agreements by employees to contribute to a fund for "providing compensation or medical services * * *" and Section 33 (e) (1) (D), which distinguishes between "amounts * * * payable as compensation" and "the cost of all benefits * * * to be furnished under section 7," and provides for the payment of "such compensation and the cost of such benefits."
We are concerned only with the meaning of "compensation" in Section 14 (m). The word is there used in such a context...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Train Dispatchers Ass'n v. I.C.C.
...F.2d at 88-89, 94.10 Compare New York Dock Sec. 5(a) with Appendix C-1 Sec. 5(a) and WJPA Sec. 6(c).11 But cf. Cardillo v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 101 F.2d 254, 255 (D.C.Cir.1938) (interpreting the term "total compensation," as used in the D.C. Employees' Compensation Act, to exclude medical......
-
Simpson's Case.
...Co. et al., 95 Vt. 76, 113 A. 536; Industrial Commission et al. v. Hammond, 77 Colo. 414, 236 P. 1006; Cardillo et al. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 69 App. D.C. 330, 101 F.2d 254; Morris v. Laughlin Chevrolet Co. et al., 217 N.C. 428, 8 S.E.2d 484, 128 A.L.R. 132, 136; and an annotation......
-
Morris v. Laughlin Chevrolet Co.
... ... of Cardillo, Deputy Commissioner v. Liberty Mutual ... Insurance Co., ... ...
-
Norton v. Travelers Ins. Co., 6913.
...v. Lowe, 2 Cir., 93 F. 2d 663, 115 A.L.R. 896, certiorari denied 304 U.S. 565, 58 S.Ct. 948, 82 L.Ed. 1532; Cardillo v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 69 App. D.C. 330, 101 F.2d 254. The decree of the District Court is reversed with directions to dismiss the bill of ...