Inland Steel Co. v. Newsome
| Decision Date | 09 February 1940 |
| Citation | 136 S.W.2d 1077,281 Ky. 681 |
| Parties | INLAND STEEL CO. et al. v. NEWSOME. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Floyd County; John W. Caudill, Judge.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Lula Newsome claimant, opposed by the Inland Steel Company and another. From an order of the circuit court remanding the proceeding to the Workmen's Compensation Board, the Inland Steel Company and another appeal.
Reversed with directions to dismiss petition.
J Woodford Howard and W. P. Mayo, both of Prestonsburg, for appellants.
J. D Bond and Oscar P. Bond, both of Prestonsburg, for appellee.
This is an appeal granted by the Clerk of this Court from an order of the Floyd Circuit Court remanding the action to the Workmen's Compensation Board, "with directions to consider the testimony of the witnesses taken by depositions at Wheel-wright Junction, which testimony has heretofore been stricken by said Board, and for such other and further preparation of said cause by deposition, hearings by the Board or otherwise, not inconsistent with this judgment, if, in the opinion of the Board, further preparation is necessary to a proper adjudication of this cause."
The preceding paragraph of the order appealed from recited that the Court had read the record and was of the opinion that the Board had erred "in requiring plaintiff to present certain testimony before the Referee by certain witnesses at a hearing held in the City of Prestonsburg, which was and is a distance of more than twenty miles from the residence of said witnesses and further erred in striking from the record the testimony of such witnesses taken by the plaintiff by depositions, pursuant to the Civil Code of Practice."
In another paragraph the order recited that the Board had further erred in failing to properly separate its findings of fact and rulings of law. The finding of the Board from which an appeal was taken to the Circuit Court followed an extensive opinion by its chairman, and read as follows:
It is urged by appellants that in view of the requirements of Section 4933, Kentucky Statutes, that the Board or its members shall hear the parties at issue and their representatives and witnesses and determine the dispute in a summary manner, and the provisions of Section 4930, Kentucky Statutes, relative to the subpoenaing of witnesses and the power of the Board to make rules for the carrying out of the provisions of the Act, the Board had full power to prohibit the taking of proof by depositions and to require that the witnesses give their testimony before a referee at a place designated by the Board irrespective of the provisions of Section 534 of the Civil Code of Practice exempting witnesses from attendance for examination upon the trial of a civil action if they reside more than 20 miles from the place where the court sits. Appellants' major contentions, however are that since the witnesses, with few exceptions, whose depositions the Board refused to consider, later appeared and were heard by the Referee, the error, if any, committed by the Board in refusing to consider the previously given depositions was harmless; that since the Board denied an award to the appellee on the sole ground that her husband did not die as the result of a traumatic injury, no ruling of law by the Board was necessary; and that since the voluminous testimony heard by the Board supported its finding of fact, the Circuit Court erred in remanding the case to the Board instead of deciding it on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Island Creek Coal Co.
...Co. v. Clark, 294 Ky. 226, 171 S.W.2d 242 (1943); Dep't of Highways v. Giles, 284 Ky. 846, 146 S.W.2d 37 (1940); Inland Steel Co. v. Newsome, 281 Ky. 681, 136 S.W.2d 1077 (1940); Searcy v. Three Point Coal Co., 280 Ky. 683, 134 S.W.2d 228 (2) If the circuit court order only remanded the cas......
-
Tyler-Couch Const. Co. v. Elmore
...or not the finding by the Board is supported by any evidence of probative value. KRS 342.285(3)(d), 342.290; Inland Steel Co. v. Newsome, 281 Ky. 681, 136 S.W.2d 1077; H. Smith Coal Co. v. Marshall, Ky., 243 S.W.2d 40. In any event, the court, upon reaching the conclusion that the denial of......
-
McClelland v. General Motors Corp.
...which sets aside an award of compensation and remands it for further proceedings of any kind is a final judgment. Inland Steel Co. v. Newsome, 281 Ky. 681, 136 S.W.2d 1077; Butler v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 88 Ga.App. 620, 76 S.E.2d 813. Many more jurisdictions, however, have adopted a dif......
-
Ratliff v. Cubbage
...Mining Co. v. Hall, 252 Ky. 168, 66 S.W.2d 41; Agsten v. Brown-Williamson Tobacco Co., 272 Ky. 20, 113 S.W.2d 829; Inland Steel Co. v. Newsome, 281 Ky. 681, 136 S.W.2d 1077. We think the Board properly denied recovery of the value of the employee's artificial foot destroyed in the accident.......