Indianapolis Bleaching Company v. Morgan
| Decision Date | 03 February 1921 |
| Docket Number | 10,936 |
| Citation | 129 N.E. 644,75 Ind.App. 672 |
| Parties | INDIANAPOLIS BLEACHING COMPANY v. MORGAN |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Rehearing Denied May 31, 1921.
From the Industrial Board of Indiana.
Proceeding for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Inez Morgan against the Indianapolis Bleaching Company. From an award increasing the compensation previously awarded on account of change in condition, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Joseph W. Hutchinson and F. K. Warne, for appellant.
Turner Merrell & Locke and Paul E. Beam, for appellee.
The record in this case discloses that appellee was an employe of appellant on October 20, 1919, and on said date received personal injuries by reason of an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment; that on November 20, 1919 she filed with the Industrial Board an application for the adjustment of her claim against appellant for compensation; that a single member of said board heard the evidence thereon in due time, and made a finding and an award in her favor; that no application was made for a review of said award within seven days from the date thereof, and the same thereby became final and conclusive on the parties thereto; that on June 3, 1920, appellee filed her application for the review of such award, on account of a change in condition; that a single member of the board heard evidence on said application, and made a finding and an award in favor of appellee thereon; that appellant, within seven days from the date of said last award, filed an application for the review thereof by the full board, and after having heard the argument of counsel, and having reviewed the evidence, the board made a finding and an award in favor of appellee, from which this appeal is prosecuted.
Appellee contends that no question is presented by this appeal, as the only error assigned requires a consideration of the evidence, and appellant has failed to have the evidence, which formed the basis of the award in her favor, first above mentioned, incorporated in the record. It is obvious that the only way the Industrial Board could determine whether there had been such a change in appellee's condition, between the time of her first award and the hearing on her second application, as would entitle her to further compensation under § 45 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Acts 1919 p. 167), was to consider her condition at each of such times. It follows as a matter of course that on the hearing of her said second application, evidence of her condition at such time was proper and necessary. But on such hearing new evidence of appellee's condition when the first award in her favor was made, would not be proper as each party must accept as her true condition at such time what is shown by the evidence introduced on the hearing resulting in said first award, in the absence of a specific finding in that regard made at such time. Pedlow v. Swartz Electric Co. (1918), 68 Ind.App. 400, 120 N.E. 603; Harper, Workmen's Compensation (2d ed.) 424; Bloomington, etc., Co. v. Industrial Board (1916), 276 Ill. 120, 114 N.E. 511; City of Pana v. Industrial Board (1917), 279 Ill. 279, 116 N.E. 647; Casparis Stone Co. v. Industrial Board (1917), 278 Ill. 77, 115 N.E. 822; Squire-Dingee Co. v. Industrial Board (1917), 281 Ill. 359, 117 N.E. 1031; Carson-Payson Co. v. Industrial Board (1918), 285 Ill. 635, 121 N.E. 264.
Appellant however, as a counter contention, asserts, that if it was necessary for...
To continue reading
Request your trial