Ossic v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, Civil 3516

• Decision Date: 07 November 1934
• Docket Number: Civil 3516
• Citation: 37 P.2d 401,44 Ariz. 366
• Parties: GEORGE OSSIC, Petitioner, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Defendant Insurance Carrier, and J. NEY MILES, HOWARD KEENER and L. C. HOLMES, Members of the Industrial Commission of Arizona, and VERDE CENTRAL MINES, Defendant Employer, Respondents
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

37 P.2d 401

44 Ariz. 366

GEORGE OSSIC, Petitioner, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Defendant Insurance Carrier, and J. NEY MILES, HOWARD KEENER and L. C. HOLMES, Members of the Industrial Commission of Arizona, and VERDE CENTRAL MINES, Defendant Employer, Respondents

Civil No. 3516

Supreme Court of Arizona

November 7, 1934

APPEAL by Certiorari from an award of the Industrial Commission of Arizona. Award set aside.

Mr Burt H. Clingan, for Petitioner.

Mr. Don C. Babbitt and Mr. Emil Wachtel, for Respondent Industrial Commission.

OPINION

LOCKWOOD, J.

George Ossic, hereinafter called petitioner, while working for the Verde Central Mines at Jerome, Arizona, was on February 17 1930, very seriously injured through an accident arising out of and in the due course of his employment. He was given the best possible medical attention and compensation for temporary disability at an expense to the Industrial Commission, hereinafter called the commission, of over $6,500, it being the insurance carrier for his employer. On the 16th day of March, 1934, the commission came to the conclusion that his temporary disability had ceased and made an award so finding, and, in addition, found that he had suffered permanent partial disability which entitled him to certain additional compensation. On April 5th petitioner filed with the commission a letter, which, although informal in its nature, is very clearly an objection to the award of March 16th, and a request for a rehearing on the matter. Indeed, the commission does not dispute its sufficiency as such. On the next day he filed a more formal application. Thereafter, and on the 18th day of April, the petition for rehearing was denied, upon the ground that it was not made within the time allowed by the rules of the commission.

There are many questions raised on this appeal, but we think we need consider only whether or not the petition for rehearing was filed in time. We have said in the case of Edens v. L. E. Dixon Const. Co., 42 Ariz. 519, 27 P.2d 1107, in regard to awards made without a formal hearing at which the injured party is given an opportunity to be present with his witnesses:

" We think that, under the provisions of section 1453 supra, its original investigation and an award thereon may be made without the necessity of a formal hearing, provided always that a dissatisfied party may have a rehearing on the award, at which time he will be given opportunity to present his evidence in the usual manner. This rehearing is always permitted on any award by the rules and regulations of the commission, and it is only where a party has requested a rehearing and has been denied the right at such rehearing...