Haugen v. Department of Labor and Industries, 25702.

• Decision Date: 03 September 1935
• Docket Number: 25702.
• Citation: 183 Wash. 398,48 P.2d 565
• Parties: HAUGEN v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

48 P.2d 565

183 Wash. 398

HAUGEN v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES.

No. 25702.

Supreme Court of Washington

September 3, 1935

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Clallam County; John M. Ralston, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by George Dewey Haugen. From a judgment reversing an order of the joint board, the Department of Labor and Industries of the State of Washington appeals.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

G. W Hamilton and J. A. Kavaney, both of Olympia for appellant.

Harry Ellsworth Foster and Phil K. Eaton, both of Olympia, for respondent.

GERAGHTY Justice.

Respondent alleging injury in extrahazardous employment, filed his claim with the department for compensation. His claim was denied for the reason that 'the condition complained of does not constitute an injury as defined in section 7675 [Rem. Rev. Stat.] of the Workmen's Compensation Act.'

Thereafter, he applied to the joint board for a rehearing, and on June 13, 1932, the board allowed his claim to the extent of an award of $120. On June 21, 1932, the claim was closed and the respondent notified of the fact. He thereafter continued to press his claim Before the department, and it was again reopened and on April 24, 1933, he was allowed $480 back compensation as well as a current monthly allowance of $60, this being the statutory allowance for an injured workman with a wife and two children. This allowance ceased after payments for the months of May and June. In the department file this notation appears:

'This claim should remain closed as claimant is employer and did not employ any workmen on date of injury. J. E. Sullivan. 7-12-33.'

By letters dated August 14 and 25, 1933, respondent was directed by the department to report at Olympia for a special examination, and advised that the expense incurred in the trip would be paid. On October 19th, respondent addressed a letter to the department saying that he had reported for examination, but that his expenses had not been paid. In the letter he also requested some explanation as to his claim.

On November 2, 1933, J. E. Sullivan, claim agent for the department, addressed a letter to him saying:

'A review of the claim and audit files substantiates our contention that on the date of injury you were not employing any workmen. We, therefore, have no alternative but to stand on our rejection of July 12, 1933, of which you were verbally informed when you called at our office.

'At this time we are requesting you to refund to the Department the sum of $830.35, which has been expended by reason of your claim.'

On October 5, 1934, the respondent filed a petition for rehearing Before the joint board, in which, after referring to his injury and the allowance of his claim and payment of compensation, he states that he had never received any official notice of the closing of his claim and did not know whether it had been closed or not; that his condition has grown steadily worse and aggravated, entitling him to further compensation and an award for permanent partial disability or permanent total disability. He alleges aggravation entitling him to the reopening of his case independently of the question whether his claim was theretofore formally closed and notice thereof served upon him.

The joint board made an order granting the application for rehearing 'as to the question of statute of limitations only.' The respondent appealed to the superior court from this disposition of his petition.

The trial...