North Beck Mining Co. v. Industrial Commission of Utah
Decision Date | 27 July 1921 |
Docket Number | 3666 |
Citation | 200 P. 111,58 Utah 486 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | NORTH BECK MINING CO. et al. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF UTAH |
Proceedings under the Industrial Act by Arvid Erickson for compensation for injuries while employed by the North Beck Mining Company, employer, and others. Award for employee by the Industrial Commission of Utah and the employer and others bring certiorari.
AWARD AFFIRMED.
James H. Wolfe, of Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs.
Harvey Cluff, Atty. Gen., and John R. Robinson, Asst. Atty. Gen for defendant.
Arvid Erickson (who was made a party to these proceedings) was injured on November 21, 1920, while employed as a miner by the North Beck Mining Company, one of the plaintiffs. The injury resulted in the amputation of the first three fingers of the right hand at the proximal joint, and the removal of a chip from the head of the metacarpal bone of the index finger. The little finger was amputated at the junction of the second and third phalanges. The thumb was not injured, and is capable of junction with the palm of the hand and the stump of the little finger.
At the time of the accident Erickson was earning $ 42 per week. The Industrial Commission awarded him compensation for temporary total disability from the time of the injury until January 25, 1921, which allowance has been paid and is not now in dispute. The Commission further awarded compensation to Erickson at the rate of $ 16 per week for a period of 75 weeks, beginning January 26, 1921. A petition for rehearing was denied by the Commission. Within 30 days thereafter plaintiffs applied to this court for a writ of certiorari or review. The writ was served upon the Industrial Commission, directing it to certify its record in the case to this court. The statute was followed in all particulars, and the certified record was transmitted as required by the writ. No notice of any kind was served upon Arvid Erickson, to whom the award for compensation had been made, and no attempt was made by plaintiffs to make him a party to the proceedings here until after the expiration of the 30 days during which a party affected by an award of the Industrial Commission may apply to this court for a writ of certiorari. Erickson, by his counsel, now moves to dismiss these proceedings.
The Industrial Act, including the procedure therein provided, must be liberally construed, and with the purpose of effectuating its beneficent and humane objects. With that idea in mind, it seems clear that the legislative intent is that in certiorari proceedings where an award is complained of no party need be given notice of the review or certiorari except the Commission. If all parties are to be served with notice, why the statute that says that the Commission and each party to the proceedings shall have the right to appear in the review proceedings, and why did not the Legislature, in suitable language, say that a writ shall not issue unless all parties interested therein are given notice? Whether the applicant to whom compensation is awarded appears in the case or not, he and his rights are protected by the Commission who defends the award against the attacks made upon it.
It is maintained by counsel for defendant that the award is in the nature of a judgment. The Industrial Act provides that an abstract of an award may be filed in the office of the clerk of the district court in any county of the state and docketed in the judgment book, and that thereafter it constitutes a lien upon the real property of the employer situated in the county for a period of eight years from the date of the award, unless previously satisfied, and that an execution may issue thereon within the same time and in the same manner and with like effect as if the award were a judgment of the district court. Docketing the award for the purpose of making it a lien upon the real estate of the employer does not transmute the award into what is ordinarily denominated a judgment. The Commission can render no judgments because its powers are administrative only. It is simply an arm of the state, and is devoid of any judicial power. When a judgment of a court has been rendered and is not appealed from within the statutory time, it is thereafter not subject to attack, except by an action in equity. An award rendered by the Commission has no such elements of finality. On the contrary, the act provides that the powers and jurisdiction of the Commission over each case shall be continuing, and "it may from time to time make such modification or changes with respect to former findings or orders with respect thereto as in its opinion may be justified." Comp. Laws 1917, § 3144. In certiorari proceedings instituted for the purpose of reviewing those questions that are subject to review in connection with an award, service upon the Commission is all that is necessary. The applicant, Arvid Erickson, not being a necessary party to these proceedings, the act does not require service of notice of application for the writ upon him. The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.
The Commission, no doubt, has the power to require notice to be given to all the parties that may be interested in the certiorari proceedings, and it would be good practice to require such notice to be given. If that be done, each party may employ such counsel as he chooses, provided he is willing to pay their fees. Such notice is, however, not jurisdictional, and in no way affects the proceedings in this court.
The principal question here involved is as to the correctness of the award. This award was made on the basis of 50 per cent loss of the use of the right hand. The schedule in Comp. Laws Utah 1917, § 3138, Sess. Laws 1919, provides for loss of the first finger at proximal joint compensation for 20 weeks; for second finger at...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barber Asphalt Corp. v. Industrial Commission
... 135 P.2d 266 103 Utah 371 BARBER ASPHALT CORPORATION v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al No ... of effectuating its beneficent and humane objects." ... North Beck Mining Co. v. Industrial Comm. , ... 58 Utah 486, 200 P. 111, 112 ... ...
-
Hanson v. Hayes
...loss of use of the hand. See, Matter of Rounds v. Davis Furniture Co., 250 N.Y. 405, 165 N.E. 827. North Beck Mining Co. v. Industrial Commission, 58 Utah 486, 200 P. 111, is not in point for the same reason as the New York cases, because it was decided under a statute which, while it is no......
-
Caillet v. Industrial Commission of Utah
... ... three fingers and part of the fourth on his left hand as in ... the case of North Beck Mining Co. v. Industrial ... Commission, 58 Utah 486, 200 P. 111 (held to be ... equivalent ... ...
-
Salt Lake City v. Industrial Commission
...140 P.2d 644 104 Utah 436 SALT LAKE CITY v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al No. 6568Supreme Court ... beneficent and humane objects. North Beck Min. Co ... v. Industrial Comm., 58 Utah 486, 200 P. 111. We ... ...