In re Stone

Decision Date22 November 1917
Docket NumberNo. 10144.,10144.
Citation117 N.E. 669,66 Ind.App. 38
PartiesIn re STONE.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Certified Questions from State Industrial Board.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by John Stone to obtain compensation for personal injuries, opposed by the Brookville Brewing Company, the employer. Certified question of law by the Industrial Board of Indiana.

IBACH, P. J.

The Industrial Board has certified a question of law to this court together with the following facts upon which it is based. On May 16, 1917, John Stone was employed by the Brookville Brewing Company at an average weekly wage of $12.96, and on that date received a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting in a total disability for work from the date of his injury to September 5, 1917, on which date he was yet totally disabled for work as a result of such injury. The employer had actual knowledge of the accidental injury at the time it occurred. On June 12, 1917, the brewing company and said Stone entered into an agreement and executed a written memorandum thereof in which it was stipulated that at the time of his injury the average weekly wage of said Stone was $12.96; that the employer should pay him compensation at the rate of $7.31 per week during the period of his total disability not exceeding - weeks, beginning May 31, 1917, and that the employer should pay the necessary and reasonable surgical, medical, and hospital expense on account of said injury for the first 30 days thereafter. This agreement was filed with and approved by the Industrial Board on July 2, 1917. Under such agreement the brewing company paid Stone six weeks' compensation. On September 5, 1917, the employé filed with the Industrial Board a verified petition alleging that he received injuries as aforesaid and as a result thereof he believes and is advised by physicians that he will continue to be totally disabled and unable to perform work of any nature for a considerable period following the date of filing his application, and that he is informed by physicians and believes the injuries received are permanent and by reason thereof, following the period of total disability, he will suffer and maintain partial disability which will be permanent and render him unfit and unable to perform a reasonable amount of work, or perform work similar to that in which he was employed prior to the date of his injury; that with knowledge of the extent and nature of his injuries and knowing that he was totally disabled for the period aforesaid and would sustain permanent disabilities as aforesaid, subsequent to receiving his injuries he and the brewing company discussed the question of compensation due him under the Workmen's Compensation Act; that on June 12, 1917, a paper purporting to be an alleged or pretended agreement, therein referred to, bearing the signatures of both parties, was filed with the Industrial Board and approved by it (setting out the agreement the substance of which heretofore appears); that said Stone or no one for him ever agreed to the pretended memorandum to accept $7.31 per week during total disability; that he did not know the memorandum so recited until a short time prior to the filing of his application; that he at no time intended to and did not agree to accept or receive compensation for the period of his total disability; that he is now informed that the brewing company did not at any time contemplate or intend to and did not agree to pay him compensation for any period extending beyond the period of his total disability, nor for any period of partial disability whether...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Chittenden v. Jarvis
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • 29 Abril 1941
    ...v. Department of Labor and Industry, 282 Mich. 489, 276 N.W. 528. Cases in Indiana are not in accord with this view. In re Stone, 66 Ind.App. 38, 117 N.E. 669; Frankfort General Ins. Co. v. Conduitt, 74 584, 127 N.E. 212; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Shiveley, 75 Ind.App. 620, 121 N.E. 50, 54. In......
  • State v. Puckett
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 14 Diciembre 1988
    ...has the force and effect of an award. Indiana University Hospitals v. Carter (1984) 1st Dist.Ind.App., 456 N.E.2d 1051; In re Stone (1917) 66 Ind.App. 38, 117 N.E. 669. Where neither party takes any step to have an award set aside or superseded and no appeal is taken, the award becomes a fu......
  • Chittenden v. Jarvis
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • 29 Abril 1941
    ...Faweett v. Department of Labor and Industry, 282 Mich. 489, 276 NW 528. Cases in Indiana are not in accord with this view. In re Stoe, 66 Ind. App. 38, 117 NE 669; Frankfort General Ins. Co. v. Conduitt, 74 Ind. App. 584, 127 NE 212; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Shiveley, 75 Ind. App. 620, 121 NE......
  • Homan v. Belleville Lumber & Supply Co.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 10 Mayo 1937
    ...agreement and to entertain an application for that purpose.” In that case this court quoted with approval from In re Stone (1917), 66 Ind.App. 38, 117 N.E. 669, 671, an opinion on a certified statement of facts, where an employer and employee had entered into a compensation agreement which ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT