London Guarantee & Acc. Co. v. Sauer, 13236.
| Decision Date | 15 May 1933 |
| Docket Number | 13236. |
| Citation | 22 P.2d 624,92 Colo. 565 |
| Parties | LONDON GUARANTEE & ACCIDENT CO., Limited, et al., v. SAUER et al. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; James C Starkweather, Judge.
Action by London Guarantee & Accident Company, Limited, and another against Clyde Sauer and Industrial Commission of Colorado to set aside compensation award. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs bring error.
Affirmed.
William E. Hutton and J. P. Nordlund, both of Denver, for plaintiffs in error.
Paul P Prosser, Atty. Gen., and M. S. Ginsberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants in error.
In 1917 an accident befell the defendant in error Sauer, an employee insured under the Workmen's Compensation Act (C. L. § 4375 et seq., as amended). The employer's insurer paid compensation during the twenty weeks of temporary disability under an agreement approved by the Industrial Commission. In 1932 Sauer asked the commission for a hearing on permanent disability which he claimed resulted from the same accident. His possible right to compensation for permanent disability had been overlooked by everybody, including Sauer, who says he was unaware of such a right and had no one to advise him. He apparently discovered his oversight shortly Before the 1932 hearing. After notice to all interested parties there was a hearing Before the referee, who, after taking evidence in the presence of Sauer and the attorney for employer and insurer, made findings and an award of compensation for permanent disability. That award was approved by the commission. Employer and insurer then filed a petition for review of the award with the commission. After denial of this petition, they brought an action in the district court to set the award aside. That court also affirmed the award, and the case is now here for our summary review.
The petition for review reveals, of course, the grounds of objection to be considered. The contentions therein of the employer company and its insurer are, in brief, as follows (1) The claim is barred by the general statute of limitations; (2) it is barred by laches; (3) there is no evidence that the permanent disability resulted from the original accident; (4) the permanent disability is conclusively presumed not to be due to that accident; (5) the findings of fact are not sufficient to support the award; (6) the award is contrary to the law and the evidence, and in making and entering it the commission acted in excess of its powers. This last contention is explained and amplified in the assignments of error herein by saying 'that the Industrial Commission acted without power and in excess of its powers in making and entering its awards allowing compensation * * * for permanent disability, in that;' Whereupon follow the specifications above condensed under Nos. (1), (2), (3), and (4), together with a specification that the claim was barred by 'the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law of Colorado,' but this point is not covered by the petition for review. Another assignment of error corresponds to the contention numbered (5) above. Before discussing these contentions, we call attention to a question of practice. To bring an action in court for setting aside an order or award of the commission, one must first file a petition for review with that body. Such petition, under 1932 C. L. Suppl. 403, § 4471, 'shall * * * specify in detail the particular errors and objections.' It is manifestly intended to apprize the commission in plain language, not necessarily technical, of the special points relied upon. It serves Before the commission the same purpose that a motion for a new trial does in a court, calling attention to concrete matters so that any errors indicated may be corrected. Statements of mere legal conclusions are insufficient. The petition for review thus defines the limits of inquiry for the district court and for this court as well, subject to the elimination of such issues as may have been abandoned by omitting them either in a district court complaint or in the subsequent assignments of error here. On the other hand, the mention--in such complaint or in such assignments--of any errors or objections not specified in the petition for review does not entitle them to be considered by the courts. Accordingly, the contention, noted above, that the claim here is barred by the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, is not Before us. That leaves for our determination the six...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Loffland Bros. Co. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Panel of State of Colo., 88SC154
...248, 186 P.2d 584 (1947); Independence Coffee & Spice Co. v. Taylor, 97 Colo. 242, 48 P.2d 798 (1935); London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Sauer, 92 Colo. 565, 22 P.2d 624 (1933)). Also, we had previously held in University of Denver v. Industrial Commission, 138 Colo. 505, 335 P.2d 292 (195......
-
Padilla v. Industrial Com'n of Colorado, 83SC64
...Industrial Commission, supra; Independence Coffee & Spice Co. v. Taylor, 97 Colo. 242, 48 P.2d 798 (1935); London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Sauer, 92 Colo. 565, 22 P.2d 624 (1933). Thus, whether a "settlement" is the underlying basis for the entry of such agency document becomes less sign......
-
Johnson v. Zavaras
...in any administrative review process.” Appellants' Br. at 3. In support of their argument, they rely on London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Sauer, 92 Colo. 565, 22 P.2d 624 (1933). However, Sauer is inapposite. In that case, the Colorado Supreme Court held the statute of limitations did not ......
-
William E. Russell Coal Co. v. Zinge
... ... by the courts. London Co. v. Industrial Commission, ... 72 Colo. 177, 210 P. 70; ... 503, 10 ... P.2d 325; London Co. v. Sauer, 92 Colo. 565, 22 P.2d ... 624; Reynolds v. Fraker Coal ... ...