Maryland Casualty Co. v. Industrial Commission of Arizona
Citation | 33 Ariz. 490,266 P. 11 |
Decision Date | 09 April 1928 |
Docket Number | Civil 2709 |
Parties | MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, a Corporation, Plaintiff, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, and R. B. SIMS, BURT H. CLINGAN, and H. S. McCLUSKEY, Members of said THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondents |
Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
Original proceeding for writ of review to set aside award of Industrial Commission, in re James M. Treahey. Award affirmed.
Mr. W L. Barnum and Mr. W. W. Rhodes, for Plaintiff.
Mr John J. Taheny, for Respondents.
James M. Treahey, hereinafter called the applicant, on May 7th 1926, filed with the Industrial Commission of Arizona an application for compensation for an injury causing hernia which he alleged had occurred while he was employed by one F. H. Keddington as a binder in a bookbinding establishment in Tucson, Arizona, Maryland Casualty Company, a corporation, hereinafter called petitioner, was the insurance carrier of compensation liability for Keddington. A hearing was had, findings made by the Commission, and an award made, after which the petitioner asked for a rehearing. This was granted, and upon such rehearing the Commission again made findings and an award, whereupon petitioner filed its application with this court for a writ of review.
There are some six grounds set up in petitioner's brief in support of its contention that the award should be set aside. They read as follows:
We shall consider them in their order.
We have held in the case of Federal Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Industrial Commission, 31 Ariz. 224, 252 P. 512:
A proceeding on a writ of review from an award of the Industrial Commission is in effect an appeal from the decision of such Commission, and, except when otherwise provided by statute or the rules of this court, should be governed by the same principles as appeals from the superior court. We therefore will consider in matters of this kind the specific grounds of objection set up by the petitioner as taking the place of assignments of error in the ordinary appeal, and any objection not so set up will be deemed as waived.
The first objection above set forth is, of course, general, and depends upon the ruling on the others.
The second is that the applicant failed to report the alleged accident "forthwith" to his employer as required by subdivision (c), section 79, Workmen's Compensation Law (Laws 1925, chap. 83). This subdivision reads, so far as material, as follows:
"(c) Whenever any accident occurs to any employee, it shall be the duty of the employee to forthwith report such accident and the injury resulting therefrom to the employer. . . ."
The evidence shows that the accident occurred on the 18th of December, 1925, but that it was not reported until March, 1926. Counsel have spent a good deal of time in discussing how soon a report must be made and the meaning of the word "forthwith" in the subdivision above quoted. We are satisfied that a delay of three months is not "forthwith." The accident is not made "forthwith," no compensation is to be paid for the injury. It also provides, however:
"But it shall be within the discretion of the Arizona Industrial Commission to relieve said injured person or his dependents from such loss or forfeiture of compensation, if the said Arizona Industrial Commission shall be of the opinion, after investigation, that the circumstances attending the failure on the part of the employee, or of his physicians, to report said accident and injury are such as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bunkley v. Republic Steel Corp.
...Travelers Ins. Co. v. Locke (DC) 56 F.2d 443; Gulf States Greosoting Co. v. Walker, 224 Ala. 104, 139 So. 261; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Industrial Com., 33 Ariz. 490, 266 P. 11; Central Surety & Ins. Corp. v. Industrial Com., 84 Colo. 481, 271 P. 617; Puritan Bedspring Co. v. Wolfe, 68 Ind.......
-
United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company v. The Industrial Commission of Arizona
...... ordinarily be governed by the same principles as appeals from. the superior courts. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Industrial Com., 33 Ariz. 490, 266 P. 11. . . The. usual rule, of course, is that where a judgment is rendered. ......
-
King v. Orr, Civil 4486
...... CORPORATION, LIMITED, Insurance Carrier; THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, and L. C. HOLMES and LYNN LOCKHART, ... review a judgment of the superior court. Maryland. Casualty Co. v. Industrial Commission, 33 Ariz. 490, 266 ......
-
Martin v. Industrial Commission, 6801
...awards is judicial in its nature and is governed by the same general principles as the judgments of the courts. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Industrial Comm., 33 Ariz. 490, 266 P. 11; Doby v. Miami Trust Co., 39 Ariz. 228, 5 P.2d 187. One of these principles is that every person is entitled to ......