Nowiny Pub. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 12 May 1925
• Citation: 187 Wis. 30,203 N.W. 740
• Parties: NOWINY PUB. CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

187 Wis. 30

203 N.W. 740

NOWINY PUB. CO.

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

May 12, 1925.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dane County; E. Ray Stevens, Judge.

Action by the Nowiny Publishing Company against the Industrial Commission, Marie Kappl, and others to review an award to defendant last named as compensation claimant, and to require the Commission to recognize and carry out a stipulation of settlement between plaintiff and claimant, and to have the award vacated and set aside. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant last-named appeals. Affirmed.

Workmen's compensation. Marie Kappl was the mother of John Kappl, who was employed by the plaintiff during the period from December 1, 1920, to July 7, 1921. John Kappl died August 23, 1921, of acute Bright's disease. It is the contention of the claimant that his condition was due to lead poisoning brought on by his contact with lead and lead fumes in the course of his employment, and that it was therefore an occupational disease. It appears without dispute that, prior to the entry of the finding and award by the Industrial Commission and on the 28th day of February, 1923, the defendant and the plaintiff entered into a written compromise wherein and whereby the defendant released the plaintiff from all claims in consideration of the payment of $400. Shortly after the making of this settlement, an award was made by the terms of which the plaintiff would be entitled to $2,548.59. Several issues were made in the proceeding, which resulted in the award. The plaintiff claimed that the death of the deceased had no connection with his employment; that the defendant was not in fact dependent upon the deceased. The Commission found against plaintiff's contentions. An action was brought to review the award and to require the Industrial Commission to recognize and carry out the stipulation of settlement and to have the award made by the Commission vacated and set aside. There was judgment for the plaintiff, from which the defendant appeals.William L. Tibbs and L. A. Schweichler, both of Milwaukee, for appellant.

Roehr & Steinmetz, of Milwaukee, for respondent.

H. L. Ekern, Atty. Gen., and Mortimer Levitan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants.

ROSENBERRY, J. (after stating the facts as above).

This matter was given very careful consideration by the trial court, and a written decision was filed, with which we fully concur. We cannot make a better disposition of this case than to set it out in extenso, which we do, with slight changes in the language to adapt it to use here. The trial court said:

“The fundamental purpose of the Workmen's Compensation Act is to provide for the payment of compensation to injured employés and their dependents, with the least possible delay and expense to the parties. If the parties can adjust the claim for compensation by compromise, especially where the right to compensation is open to doubt, as is the case here in question, such compromise is in accord with this fundamental purpose of the compensation act. The only danger to be apprehended is that in such compromise one of the parties may be overreached by the other. But the Legislature has insured fair dealing in such compromise by giving the Commission full power at any time within one year from the time of such compromise to set aside or modify the same, if either party make application for such review. This statute expressly recognizes the right...