Pierce v. Ellis
| Decision Date | 06 May 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 14295.,14295. |
| Parties | PIERCE et al. v. ELLIS. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Industrial Board.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Law by Olive E. Pierce and others, opposed by James C. Ellis, employer. The Industrial Board denied compensation, and claimants appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Frank E. Gilkison, of Shoals, for appellants.
White, Wright & Boleman, of Indianapolis, for appellee.
This was an application for compensation by the appellants as dependents of an employee of the appellee. Following an adverse finding by the single member, the appellants here had the finding and order reviewed by the full board. On November 5, 1930, the Full Industrial Board of Indiana entered upon its records the following finding and order:
“The full Industrial Board of Indiana having heard the argument of counsel and havingreviewed the evidence and being thereby duly advised in the premises, finds for the defendant on plaintiffs' application herein.
“It is therefore considered and ordered by the full Industrial Board of Indiana that the plaintiffs take nothing by their application herein.
“It is further ordered that the plaintiffs pay the costs of this proceeding.
“Dated this 5th day of November, 1930.”
On January 12, 1931, without assigning any reason therefor, the full board entered what they called a “corrected award.” This so-called “corrected award” is nothing more or less than a detailed special finding of facts.
On January 23, 1931, the appellants filed their assignment of errors, which, omitting the formal parts is as follows: “That the award of the full board made herein, is contrary to law.”
The awards or orders, as they are denominated by the board, are identical except in the last one there is no order that appellants pay the costs. The appellants do not say which award they are appealing from.
The appellee filed a motion to dismiss because the appeal was not taken within thirty days from the date of the original award by the full board.
[1] The Industrial Board of Indiana is purely the creature of legislative action, and any powers it has are necessarily derived from the statute creating it.
The board in its proceeding on November 5, 1930, “finds for the defendant on plaintiffs application herein.” Whether or not this is a sufficient “finding of the facts on which it is based” is not before us in this proceeding. What the board must necessarily find where it denies an award of compensation has not been laid down by this court. Conceding, for the purpose of illustration, that this finding is not sufficient, the appellants had a remedy by appeal wherein that question could have been raised and presented to this court for determination.
[2] We must presume that what the board was attempting to do here was to in effect correct its records by a nunc pro tunc entry. They do not have this authority by the statute. Whether or not they have it in any event is not here decided. That is not necessary to a determination of...
To continue reading
Request your trial