Fischer v. W.F. Priebe & Co.
| Decision Date | 22 November 1916 |
| Docket Number | 31485 |
| Parties | EMIL FISCHER, Appellee, v. W. F. PRIEBE & CO., Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Carroll District Court.--M. E. HUTCHISON, Judge.
Affirmed.
T. M Coen and Lee & Robb, for appellant.
Brown McCrary, for appellee.
THE opinion sufficiently states the case.--Affirmed.
The abstract states, in general terms, that there was a hearing before the board of arbitration to consider a claim presented by plaintiff against his employer, the defendant, under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act; that the board found and returned that the plaintiff was entitled to such compensation at the rate of $ 8.15 per week for the period of 100 weeks, and ordered the fees of arbitrators and all other costs to be paid as by statute provided. It is further stated that thereafter, defendants presented to the Industrial Commission a petition for review, the substance of which was that the award had not sufficient support in the evidence; that the board erred in the admission of evidence, in allowing the plaintiff's claim for hospital fees, and in taxing costs. It is further stated that thereafter the Industrial Commission readjusted the award by ordering the allowance of $ 8.15 to be paid for a period not exceeding 300 weeks, but subject to the proviso that, if plaintiff recovered from his injury sufficiently to earn part wages, the compensation named should be reduced to one half his actual loss of earning power. The petition for review was denied. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed in the district court a copy of said award of the arbitrators and order of the commissioner, and on his application the court entered a decree (so-called), reciting the proceedings shown by the certified copy filed as aforesaid and ordering that defendant obey and comply with the award, as confirmed by the commissioner. It also found the unpaid accumulated amount of the award to be $ 655.70, which defendant was ordered to pay, together with arbitrator's fees and hospital expenses, as assessed by the commissioner. From this decree or order, the defendant has appealed.
It is to be said at the outset that the abstract, though alleged to contain the entire record, is so fragmentary and incomplete as to render any review of the proceedings extremely unsatisfactory. We shall, however, briefly consider the three alleged errors assigned for a reversal.
I. It is said that the decree permits the plaintiff to recover weekly compensation from the date of his injury, when the statute provides that such allowance shall begin on the fifteenth day after the injury. This conclusion is reached by taking the gross amount allowed for accumulated unpaid installments and dividing it by the weekly rate, which process, counsel say, will show the correctness of their claim. We do not stop to apply the test. The proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act are, and are intended to be, simple and informal. The transcript of the findings and orders of the commission and arbitrators to the district court are not for the purpose of a retrial but to provide means by which those findings and orders may be enforced. Should the court, in making up its entry, make a mistake in computation, we presume it would be rectified on the spot, if a party interested is solicitous enough about it to point it out. The judgment in this case is not in all respects like other judgments. By the terms of the adjusted award of the arbitrators, the allowance made is subject to reduction or further readjustment if plaintiff shall improve materially in his earning capacity, and, if it be true that any mistake has been made in a mere matter of computation, it will doubtless be within the power of the court to remedy it by an entry nunc pro tunc or otherwise, when the matter is properly presented. So far as the record shows, the objection was not raised in the trial court, and we will not order a reversal on account of it. It may also be said that...
To continue reading
Request your trial