Constantin v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n.
| Decision Date | 29 September 1914 |
| Docket Number | No. 2691.,2691. |
| Citation | 75 W.Va. 32 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | De Constantin v. Public Service Commission. |
The jurisdiction to review acts of the Public Service Commission, respecting the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Fund, conferred upon the Supreme Court of Appeals, by sec. 43 of chap. 10 of the Acts of 1913, is original, not appellate. (p. 33).
An injury incurred by a workman, in the course of his. travel to his place of work and not on the premises of the employer, does not give right to participation in such fund, unless the place of injury was brought within the scope of employment by an express or implied requirement in the contract of employment, of its use by the servant in going to and returning from his work. (p. 34).
Application on behalf of one De Constantin to the Supreme Court for an order requiring the Public Service Commission to allow a rejected claim to right of participation in the workmen's compensation fund.
Order refused.
Jos. W. Henderson and Francis Rawle, for appellant.
A. A. Lilly, Attorney General, and Frank Lively, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
The rejection of the claim to right of participation in the Workmen's Compensation Fund, made on behalf of the dependents of Guiseppe Zippi, by the Acting Royal Consul of Italy, is the occasion of this first application to this court for the exercise of its supervisory powers over the Public Service Commission, respecting its administratk n of that fund. This proceeding is authorized by a statute different from the one under which United Fuel Gas Company v. Public Service Commission, 73 W. Va. 571, 80 S. E. 531, was instituted, but the constitutional provisions referred to in the opinion in that case, render it impossible to treat this one as an ordinary appeal or bring it within the appellate jurisdiction of this court. What the statute, sec. 43 of Chap. 10 of rlie Acts of 1913,.denominates an appeal must, if possible, be regarded as a right given to a claimant to participation in the fund in question, to apply to this court for the exercise of its original jurisdiction. Any other construction would render the provision unconstitutional. The Commission itself is not a court. It is only an administrative board, possessing quasi-judicial and legislative powers. United Fuel Gas Company v. Public Service Commission, cited. Its powers, in the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Fund, are not substantially different from its powers over other matters within its control; and the principles upon which the jurisdiction of this court over its acts, by original process, was sustained in the case just cited, determine the jurisdictional question now presented.
Only the claimant to participation in such fund can apply to this court for such relief, and he is permitted to do so only in those instances in which the commission, by its final action, has denied to him such right, upon some ground going to the basis of his claim, such as self-infliction of the injury, of which he complains, or incurrence of the njury otherwise than in the course of his employment, As the commission itself and the fund are creatures of the legislative will, it was competent for the legislature to deprive the Commission of all discretionary power, respecting the right of participation, and make it a purely legal question. In other words, it could make it mandatory upon the commission to allow participation, if the injury arose out of and in the course of employment and was not self-inflicted, and deny to the commission the right to determine what constitutes self-inflicted injury or an injury incurred otherwise than in the course of employment, and whether the claimant is a dependent of the injured person, by making all such questions, arising upon the facts disclosed, questions of law for determination by this court,...
To continue reading
Request your trial