Hanson v. Independent School District 11-J

• Decision Date: 25 January 1937
• Docket Number: 6267
• Citation: 57 Idaho 297,65 P.2d 733
• Parties: EMIL HANSON, Appellant, v. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 11-J, ELMORE AND OWYHEE COUNTIES, IDAHO, and STATE INSURANCE FUND, Surety, Respondents
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

65 P.2d 733

57 Idaho 297

EMIL HANSON, Appellant, v. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 11-J, ELMORE AND OWYHEE COUNTIES, IDAHO, and STATE INSURANCE FUND, Surety, Respondents

No. 6267

Supreme Court of Idaho

January 25, 1937

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW - COMPENSATION - AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT SUFFICIENCY OF-APPROVAL BY INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD

1. Agreements of settlement which Industrial Accident Board is authorized to approve must incorporate provisions of Compensation Act or else such provisions will be read into agreements.

2. Industrial Accident Board has no power to award lesser or different compensation to claimant than that provided by Compensation Act, even though claimant was suffering from preexisting and progressive disease.

3. Industrial Accident Board held without authority to approve agreement which admitted employee's permanent total disability attributable to injury which was basis of claim for compensation, but which segregated and compensated for only part of injury and refused to allow full compensation fixed in Compensation Act for such disability on ground that remainder thereof resulted from preexisting and progressive disease of appendicitis.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, for Owyhee County. Hon. Chas. F. Koelsch, Judge.

Proceeding under Workmen's Compensation Act for review and modification of award. Judgment for defendants. Reversed and remanded.

Reversed and remanded with instructions. Petition for rehearing denied.

E. B Smith, for Appellant.

The Workmen's Compensation Law sanctions an agreement between the parties only when it conforms to the provisions of the act. An agreement, or portion thereof, whether or not approved by the board, which fails to provide compensation benefits commensurate with the injury sustained and results thereof, is a nullity, in that it becomes an attempt to relieve the employer in whole or in part from liability created by the act. (I. C. A., secs. 43-902, 43-1001, 43-1003, 43-1005, 43-1006, 43-1402; Jenkins v. Boise Payette Lbr. Co., 49 Idaho 24, 287 P. 202; 71 Corpus Juris, p. 939, sec. 695; Forbes v. Ottumwa Sand Co., 216 Iowa 292, 249 N.W. 399; Boyko v. Federated Metals Corp. (N. J.) 164 A. 462.)

An agreement approved by the board, although having the effect of an award, becomes final and conclusive, only, "in the absence of fraud. " (I. C. A., sec. 43-1408; Van Blaricom v. Export Lbr. Co., 52 Idaho 459, 16 P.2d 990; Rodius v. Coeur d'Alene Mill Co., 46 Idaho 692, 271 P. 1.)

J. R. Smead and P. C. O'Malley, for Respondents.

The Workmen's Compensation Act provides two methods for arriving at compensation, one by a hearing before the board and the other by a tentative agreement between the parties to be filed with and approved by the board. (I. C. A., secs. 43-1402, 43-1403, 43-1404.)

Such an agreement, if and when approved by the board, becomes the decision and the award of the board. (Reagan v. Baxter Foundry etc. Works, 53 Idaho 722, 27 P. 62; Rodius v. Coeur d'Alene Mill Co., 46 Idaho 692, 271 P. 1.)

An award of the board, arrived at by either method, is final and conclusive unless appealed from within thirty days, except only if procured by fraud. (I. C. A., sec. 43-1408; Reagan v. Baxter Foundry etc. Works, supra.)

BUDGE, J. Holden and Givens, JJ., concur. Morgan, C. J., did not sit at the hearing and took no part in the decision of this case.

OPINION

BUDGE, J.

This case was before this court upon a former appeal (Hanson v. Independent School Dist. 11-J, 50 Idaho 81, 294 P. 513) and it will therefore be unnecessary to restate the facts.

Upon the former appeal the cause was remanded to the trial court with the following instructions:

"The board must find specifically whether there is an accident and whether such accident did or did not proximately cause the injury, that is, the ruptured appendix and serious consequences. The presence of a previous disease or weakened condition is immaterial, . . . . and the cause remanded to the Industrial Accident Board for the purpose of having the board make the specific finding as above noted and conclude accordingly."

The board made no further findings, but approved an agreement between appellant and respondent providing in part as follows:

"WHEREAS The said Emil Hanson is permanently and totally disabled for work as the result of the said appendicitis and complications arising therefrom by reason of the collapse of the right lung, loss of the ribs on the right side, and a large abdominal hernia, and

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED By and between the parties hereto that of such total and permanent disability 300 weeks may be considered as being attributable to the injury forming the basis of his claim for compensation, and that the remainder of such disability may be considered as resulting from a preexisting and progressive disease of appendicitis; and the said Independent School District No. 11-J of Elmore and Owyhee Counties, Idaho, as employer, and the State Insurance Fund, as surety hereby agree to pay to the said Emil Hanson Compensation at the rate of $ 16 per week for the full period of 300 weeks, together with the expense for medical, surgical, hospital, and nursing services, and other expenses necessarily and incidentally incurred by reason of said appendicitis and illness resulting therefrom."

It will be observed that the agreement provides that Emil Hanson, appellant, was to receive compensation at the rate of $ 16 per week for the full period of 300 weeks, together with medical, surgical, hospital and nursing expenses, which amounts have been paid. The agreement was approved by the Industrial Accident Board on March 3, 1931. On July 26, 1934, appellant filed his application with the board for a review and modification of the agreement or award, seeking compensation benefits as provided by law (I. C. A., sec. 43-1110) for his permanent total disability for work, or at the rate of $ 16 per week for 400 weeks and thereafter a weekly compensation of six dollars a week. Appellant's application was denied by the board and thereafter upon appeal from the action of the board to the district court the action of the board was sustained. This appeal is from the judgment of the district court.

Appellant specifies four assignments of error all of which specifications raise the same question, namely, whether the court erred in failing to hold that that portion of the agreement which provides that appellant was to receive compensation for permanent total disability for a period of 300 weeks, only, instead of compensation for total permanent disability for a period of 400 weeks and additional compensation thereafter at the rate of six dollars per week. The compensation allowed was based upon the theory that it compensated appellant for the permanent total disability sustained by reason of the accident and that further compensation could not be allowed since appellant was suffering from a preexisting and progressive disease of appendicitis prior to the injury. Or otherwise stated: It was sought to segregate the result of the preexisting and progressive disease of appendicitis from the result of the accident and apportion the award accordingly. It was admitted by all of the parties, as stipulated in the agreement, that appellant is permanently and totally disabled for work, and that his permanent disability was attributable in part to the injury forming the basis of his claim for compensation. The question therefore arises: Was it within the power of the board to approve an agreement segregating and compensating for a part of the injury following the accident but refusing to allow appellant full compensation for total and permanent disability due to the fact that he had a preexisting and progressive disease or weakness. I. C. A., section 43-1402, provides:

"If the employer and the injured employee reach an agreement in regard to compensation under this act, a memorandum of the agreement shall be filed with the board, and if approved by it, thereupon the memorandum shall for all purposes be enforceable under the provisions of section 43-1410 unless modified as provided in section 43-1407. Such agreement shall be approved only when the terms conform to the provisions of this act." (Italics inserted.)

It is the mandate contained in the last sentence of the foregoing statute which appellant urges was not followed by the board with the result that the approved agreement was a nullity in so far as it attempted to provide a different compensation than that provided by the Workmen's Compensation Act for total permanent...