Industrial Commission v. Rowe

Decision Date27 March 1967
Docket NumberNo. 22294,22294
Citation425 P.2d 274,162 Colo. 248
PartiesINDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Colorado, Denver-Golden Corporation, and State Compensation Insurance Fund, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Elmer ROWE, Defendant in Error.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Peter L. Dye, Asst. Atty. Gen., Alious Rockett, Harold Clark Thompson, Francis L. Bury, Feay Burton Smith, Jr., Richard T. Goold, Denver, for plaintiffs in error.

Edward J. Scheunemann, Denver, for defendant in error.

SUTTON, Justice.

This writ of error involves a claim filed April 24, 1964, under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Elmer Rowe, the defendant in error here.

Rowe had been employed by the Denver-Golden Corporation, one of the plaintiffs in error, as a foreman in its Schwartzwalder Uranium mine and claimed total disability from the occupational disease of silicosis. The referee awarded Rowe benefits of $11,400 under the escalator clause of C.R.S.1963, 8118--16. Five thousand dollars of the award was to be paid by respondents Denver-Golden Corporation and State Compensation Insurance Fund; the balance was to be paid from what is known as the Subsequent Injury Fund because the claimant had also previously worked in the mines of a different employer. The referee also made a finding that Rowe had begun to receive social security payments in the amount of $123 per month as of August 1, 1964, and that his weekly compensation rate should accordingly be reduced, under C.R.S.1963, 81--12--1(4), from $43.75 per week to $29.56 per week as of that date.

Denver-Golden Corporation and the State Compensation Insurance Fund thereafter petitioned the Industrial Commission to reduce the total aggregate compensation to be paid to Rowe porportionately with the reduced weekly compensation. The Commission thereupon, after hearing, by a vote of 2 to 1 reduced the total amount due from the two state funds and Denver-Golden Corporation from $11,400 to $7,959.94. It provided that denver-Golden and the Insurance Fund were to be responsible for $3,635.73 of this amount and that the balance of $4,324.21 was to be paid from the Subsequent Injury Fund. Rowe, being dissatisfied with the ordered reduction, appealed to the District Court with the result that the decision was reversed with orders to the Industrial Commission to reinstate the total amount of $11,400 initially awarded by the referee.

Since there is no dispute that this claimant is totally disabled by silicosis, the primary issue here is: Whether the maximum aggregate amount awarded Rowe under C.R.S.1963, 81--18--16 should have been reduced proportionately to the weekly compensation as the latter was reduced under C.R.S.1963, 81--12--1(4)?

The statute provides in pertinent part:

'(4) In cases where it is determined that periodic disability benefits granted by the federal old-age, survivors, and disability insurance act are payable to an individual, The weekly benefits payable pursuant to this section shall be reduced, but not below zero, by an amount equal as nearly as practical to one-half such federal periodic benefits for such week.' (C.R.S.1963, 81--12--1(4)). (Emphasis added.)

In addition, C.R.S.1963, 81--18--16(2) provides for an increasing scale in the aggregate amount payable to one totally disabled from silicosis. This section provides for an award of $500 as of January 1, 1946, and thereafter the aggregate payable is to increase at a rate of $50 per month until a maximum of $13,693.75 (as provided for in C.R.S.1963, 81--18--15) is reached. As of March 27, 1964, the date on which claimant Rowe was determined to be totally disabled, the aggregate payable to him under this formula had reached $11,400, the amount awarded by the referee here.

Nowhere in the Workmen's Compensation Act is there a provision for a reduction of the Aggregate total award in cases in which a claimant is also receiving federal old-age or disability payments. The only statute applicable is C.R.S.1963, 81--12--1(4) which provides that the Weekly benefits payable shall be reduced in this type of case. Plaintiffs in error would, nevertheless, have us infer from the above quoted portion of C.R.S.1963, 81--12--1, that the aggregate awards as well as weekly benefits are to be reduced. They urge that it was the intent of the legislature to prohibit recovery by a claimant from more than one employer-financed plan, and that failure to reduce the aggregate total in this case would thwart legislative intent. And, they disregard entirely the statutory provision of C.R.S.1963, 81--18--16(2) which requires a formula payment to Rowe of $11,400 from Workmen's Compensation...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • T and T Loveland Chinchilla Ranch v. Bourn, 24275
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • December 7, 1970
    ... ... Insurance Company, Insurer, and the Industrial ... Commission of Colorado, Plaintiffs in Error, ... Margaret B. BOURN, as the Widow of Byron ... Industrial Commission v. Rowe, 162 Colo. 248, 425 P.2d 274 (167); and Brush Hay and Milling Company v. Small, 154 Colo. 11, 388 ... ...
  • Engelbrecht v. Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • April 23, 1984
    ... ... HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, Mobile Premix ... Concrete, Inc., Industrial Commission of the State ... of Colorado, and Charles McGrath, ... Director of the Colorado ... See also Industrial Commission v. Rowe, 162 Colo. 248, 425 P.2d 274 (1967); City of Thornton v. Teeter, 37 Colo.App. 427, 548 P.2d 133 ... ...
  • Colorado Div. of Employment and Training, Dept. of Labor and Employment v. Parkview Episcopal Hosp.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • September 29, 1986
    ... ... LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, Petitioner, ... PARKVIEW EPISCOPAL HOSPITAL and the Industrial Commission of ... the State of Colorado, Respondents ... No. 84SC473 ... Supreme Court of ... Bysom, 166 Colo. 502, 444 P.2d 627 (1968); Industrial Commission v. Rowe, 162 Colo. 248, 425 P.2d 274 (1967). The construction of a statute is a question of law. Knoll v ... ...
  • Mills v. Guido's
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • October 11, 1990
    ... ... GUIDO'S, Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority, and the ... Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of ... Colorado, Respondents ... No. 89CA1897 ... Colorado ... See § 2-4-401(6), C.R.S. (1980 Repl.Vol. 1B); Casa Bonita Restaurant v. Industrial Commission, 677 P.2d 344 (Colo.App.1983) ...         In concluding that the additional protection ... See Industrial Commission v. Rowe, 162 Colo. 248, 425 P.2d 274 (1967) ...         We also reject the Panel's conclusion that ... ...
  • 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