Croteau v. Harvey & Landers
| Decision Date | 30 November 1954 |
| Citation | 99 N.H. 264,109 A.2d 553 |
| Parties | Arthur CROTEAU v. HARVEY & LANDERS et al. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Maurice A. Broderick, Manchester, for plaintiff.
Devine & Millimet, Joseph A. Millimet, Manchester, for defendants.
The main issue here is whether the plaintiff's motion to reopen was properly granted. The Court by its original decree of July 18, 1951, dismissing the petition 'without prejudice to further proceedings under section 38 [C. 266], Laws of 1947,' left it open to the plaintiff to petition for modification of the decree under the above section which, as amended by Laws 1949, c. 277, reads as follows: 'Upon application of any party in interest upon the ground of change in the conditions, mistake as to nature or extent of injury or disability, fraud, undue influence or coercion, the commissioner of labor or the superior court, whichever made the original award, may, not later than one year after the date of the last payment fixed by the award, review said award, and upon such review, may make an order ending, diminishing or increasing the compensation previously awarded, subject to the maximum or minimum provided in this chapter * * *.'
The difficulty with the plaintiff's position is that no award within the plain meaning of § 38, supra, which contemplates the payment of some compensation, has ever been made either by the Court or the labor commissioner. True, it is alleged that the parties had an agreement whereby payments were made to the plaintiff, the last one being on September 5, 1950, but there is no evidence that any memorandum of this was ever filed with or approved by the Commissioner, cf. Therrien v. Waumbec Mills, 99 N.H. 137, 106 A.2d 565, as required by Laws 1947, c. 266, § 34, which provides: 'If an employer and an injured employee enter into an agreement in regard to compensation payable under the provisions of this chapter, a memorandum thereof shall be filed with said commissioner of labor; and, if approved by him, such agreement, subject to modification as provided in section 38 shall be enforceable as provided in section 40. * * *' Nowhere in chapter 266 or its pertinent amendments do we find any indication that the Legislature intended to make section 38 permitting modification of an award applicable to the situation here. Weymer v. Industrial Commission, 404 Ill. 271, 88 N.E.2d 841. It follows that the portion of the order attempting to permit further proceedings under section 38 is invalid. King v. Kniznick, 98 N.H. 247, 98 A.2d 356.
However, the plaintiff claims that if section 38 is inapplicable, the Court properly reopened the case for the introduction of newly discovered medical testimony. It is too well established here to require extended citation that 'after a case has been closed, the court may, in its discretion, reopen it for introduction of additional testimony and that the exercise of its discretion will not be revised by this court.' Ricker v. Mathews, 94 N.H. 313, 53 A.2d 196, 198, 171 A.L.R. 296; Manchester Amusement Co. v. Conn, 80 N.H. 455, 460, 119 A. 69. No reason appears to depart from this rule. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. La France Industries, a Div. of Riegel Textile Corp., 0525
...Roman v. Broussard, 255 So.2d 135 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1971); Crump v. Fields, 251 Miss. 864, 171 So.2d 857 (1965); Croteau v. Harvey & Landers, 99 N.H. 264, 109 A.2d 553 (1954); 100 C.J.S. Workmen's Compensation § 596 at 843 (1958); cf. Holcombe v. Dan River Mills, 333 S.E.2d 338 (S.C.Ct.App.1......
-
State v. Goding
...Although the trial court has the inherent power to correct an earlier, erroneous trial court ruling, see Croteau v. Harvey & Landers, 99 N.H. 264, 267, 109 A.2d 553, 555 (1954), defense counsel was not obliged to test or relitigate the court's earlier rulings on pre-trial motions just becau......
-
Merrimack Valley Wood Prods., Inc. v. Near
...of the inherent power of the Court to review its own proceedings to correct error or prevent injustice." Croteau v. Harvey & Landers, 99 N.H. 264, 267, 109 A.2d 553 (1954). The trial court noted, as cited above, that the prior order not requiring a bond "does not specifically address respon......
-
Merrimack Valley Wood Products v. Near
...of the inherent power of the Court to review its own proceedings to correct error or prevent injustice." Croteau v. Harvey & Landers, 99 N.H. 264, 267, 109 A.2d 553 (1954). The trial court noted, as cited above, that the prior order not requiring a bond "does not specifically address respon......