French v. Industrial Com'n of Colorado

• Decision Date: 28 January 1929
• Docket Number: 12083.
• Citation: 85 Colo. 173,274 P. 742
• Parties: FRENCH v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF COLORADO et al.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

274 P. 742

85 Colo. 173

FRENCH v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF COLORADO et al.

No. 12083.

Supreme Court of Colorado

January 28, 1929

Rehearing Denied Feb. 18, 1929.

Department 1.

Error to District Court, Boulder County; Robert G. Smith, Judge.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Theodore Rowley claimant, opposed by S.E. French, employer. From a judgment dismissing the complaint by the employer to review the action of the Industrial Commission awarding compensation, the employer brings error.

Affirmed.

F. T Johnson and S. H. Johnson, both of Denver, for plaintiff in error.

William L. Boatright, Atty. Gen., and Otto Friedrichs, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants in error.

WHITFORD C.J.

Theordore Rowley, defendant in error, applied to the Industrial Commission for compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act (C. L.§§ 4375-4525, as amended), for injuries sustained by him as an employee of S.E. French, the plaintiff in error. Upon the hearing before the referee, the claimant was awarded compensation. The plaintiff in error filed his petition for review, which was had by the Industrial Commission, which resulted in the Industrial Commission making a supplementary award by finding that the plaintiff in error at the time of the accident employed four men, and ordering payment of compensation to claimant. Thereafter another hearing was had, at which the permanent disability of the claimant was determined by the referee, and the claimant granted an award based upon such finding of permanent disability. The plaintiff in error again filed a petition in writing, praying for a review of the findings of the referee, which was duly held, and the Industrial Commission, in reviewing such record, found that the plaintiff in error employed four men, and that the claimant was permanently disabled, and awarded him compensation in consonance with such findings. To these findings and award made by the commission the plaintiff in error did not file a petition for review, but contented himself with filing his complaint for review of the action of the Industrial Commission in the district court. The court dismissed the complaint, and the plaintiff below comes here with a writ of error to review that judgment.

The judgment of the court below must be sustained. The district court had no jurisdiction to review the proceedings of the Industrial Commission under the facts disclosed by this record. A petition to the commission for a review of its own...