Girouard's Case
Decision Date | 17 February 1950 |
Citation | 145 Me. 62,71 A.2d 682 |
Parties | GIROUARD'S CASE. GIROUARD v. BATES MFG. CO. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Lessard & Delahanty, Thomas E. Delahanty, Lewiston, for claimant, Oliver Girouard.
Kneeland & Splane, Boston Mass., Sanford L. Fogg, Augusta, for Bates Mfg. Co., Androscoggin Division, defendant.
Before MURCHIE, C. J., and THAXTER, FELLOWS, MERRILL, NULTY, and WILLIAMSON, JJ.
On appeal. This is an appeal from a pro forma decree by a Justice of the Superior Court in accord with a decision of the Industrial Accident Commission awarding compensation to the petitioner, Oliver Girouard. To the petition for compensation, the respondent filed an answer denying each and every allegation thereof. R.S. Chap. 26, Sec. 37 provides as follows:
This provision of the statute is mandatory. Not only is it mandatory but it is jurisdictional. If an answer to a petition, as here, raises issues of fact the Commission has no authority to hear and determine those issues except in one of the three methods set forth in the statute, (1) upon the testimony of witnesses, (2) by agreement upon affidavits presenting the claims of both parties, or (3) upon an agreed statement of facts filed with the Commission by parties for a ruling upon the law applicable thereto.
As we said in Maguire's Case, 120 Me. 398, 115 A. 176:
The Industrial Accident Commission cannot clothe itself with a jurisdiction it does not possess, nor can the parties confer upon it such jurisdiction either by waiver, consent or express stipulation. Jurisdiction may be conferred only by law, never by act or omission of the tribunal or, except over their persons, of the parties appearing before it.
This case was heard before the Industrial Accident Commission upon the testimony of witnesses. Decree was rendered and the parties notified as required by the foregoing provision of the statute. As before stated, the case is now before this Court on an appeal from the pro forma decree of a Justice of the Superior Court in accordance with the decree of the Industrial Accident Commission. The record presented to us contains no report of the evidence before the Commission, nor does it contain any abstract thereof approved either by the Justice of the Superior Court rendering the pro forma decree, or by the Industrial Accident Commission, or any of its members hearing the case.
The only review of orders and decrees of the Industrial Accident Commission by the courts is that provided for in R.S. Chap. 26, Sec. 41. This section setting forth the procedure to be followed and conferring jurisdiction upon the court to review is as follows:
It is to be noted that the foregoing statute provides with respect to the pro forma decree: 'Such decree shall have the same effect and all proceedings in relation thereto shall thereafter be the same as though rendered in a suit in equity duly heard and determined by said court, except that there shall be no appeal therefrom upon questions of fact found by said commission or by any commissioner, or where the decree is based upon a memorandum of agreement...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Frank v. Assessors of Skowhegan
... ... et al. v. Walton et al., 135 Me. 57, 190 A. 297 (1937)), or ... (2) beyond its statutory power (Girouard's Case, 145 Me. 62, 71 A.2d 682 (1950)), or ... (3) taken without according procedural and substantive due process (Kovack v. Licensing Board, City of ... ...
-
White v. Monmouth Canning Co.
... ... (1) 'The Commissioner hearing this case finds as a fact from the foregoing testimony on which there is no material deviation from the employee's story as told to the several of the hearing ... ...
-
Semo v. Goudreau
... ... It is apparent from the record in this proceeding that the appeal in this case was not seasonably filed in accordance with the above statute. Regardless of the statute last quoted, it is claimed by the defendants that Equity ... ...
-
Russell v. Duchess Footwear
... ... -employee's petition for review of the decision of the Appellate Division of the Workers' Compensation Commission (the Division) in this case was improvidently granted by this Court pursuant to 39 M.R.S.A. § 103-C(3) ... The petition for award of compensation was initially ... ...