Reid v. Department of Labor and Industries

• Decision Date: 17 March 1938
• Docket Number: 26409.
• Citation: 194 Wash. 108,77 P.2d 589
• Parties: REID v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

77 P.2d 589

194 Wash. 108

REID v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES.

No. 26409.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

March 17, 1938

Appeal from Superior Court, Whatcom County; Edwin Gruber, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Frank Reid claimant. From a judgment reversing an order of the Department of Labor and Industries rejecting the claim and remainding the cause with directions, the Department appeals.

Reversed with directions to dismiss the proceeding.

MAIN BLAKE, and HOLCOMB, JJ., dissenting.

G. W Hamilton, Atty. Gen., and J. A. Kavaney, of Olympia, for appellant.

Lester Whitmore, of Bellingham, for respondent.

STEINERT, Chief Justice.

In this action, recovery for personal injuries was sought under the provisions of the State Workmen's Compensation Act Rem.Rev.Stat. § 7673 et seq. The claim of the workman was rejected by the supervisor of the Department of Labor and Industries. On rehearing by the joint board, the decision of the supervisor was affirmed, on the sole and specific ground that, at the time of the alleged injury the claimant was not engaged in work within the jurisdiction of the division of industrial insurance. On appeal to the superior court, where the case was tried without a jury, judgment was entered reversing the decisions of the supervisor and the joint board, respectively, and remanding the cause to the department with direction to classify the workman as within the purview of the act and to determine the claim upon its merits. The department has appealed.

Respondent has moved to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment on the grounds (1) that the statement of facts was not filed within the time limited by law, and (2) that the statement filed is insufficient.

The statement of facts was not filed within 90 days after the time of taking an appeal to this court, as required by Rule of Practice VII, found in 159 Wash. lxi. It must therefore be stricken. Tremblay v. Nichols, 187 Wash. 109, 59 P.2d 1123. In passing, it may be said that the statement of facts does not include any evidence whatever, but consists simply of legal argument and colloquy between court and counsel.

However, while there is no statement of facts properly Before us, it does not follow, in this instance, that the appeal must be dismissed. The cause was submitted to the trial court solely upon the departmental record, as appears by a recital in the court's findings. The departmental record was duly filed in the superior court and thus became a part of the record therein. It was subsequently brought to this court as a part of the transcript on appeal. Since it affirmatively appears from the record that we have Before us all the evidence upon which the court functioned, no statement of facts is necessary. Hunter v. Department of Labor and Industries, 190 Wash. 380, 68 P.2d 224. The motion to dismiss and affirm is denied.

The principal question in the case is whether a workman employed by the Washington Emergency Relief Administration in the construction of a public building for one of the municipalities of the state, and injured in the course of such employment, is entitled to the benefits of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Respondent, a resident of Everson, Whatcom county, was, by trade, a carpenter and saw filer, and at times had worked in the woods. In the latter part of 1934, he was unable to get steady employment and in consequence thereof registered with the Washington Emergency Relief Administration, hereinafter designated as the WERA, for unemployment or relief work, which then was being assigned to various applicants in rotation. Respondent was given an assignment of work which he completed. Later, when his turn for work came again, he was assigned as a carpenter in the construction of a city hall which the WERA was then erecting for the town of Everson.

It appears from the two claims filed by respondent that on January 3, 1935, while he was putting plyboard on the ceiling of the city hall, particles of plaster or concrete fell into his right eye; that, on account of the injury to the eye, its vision was seriously impaired; and that later, in February, a branch of a tree struck and lacerated the eye, necessitating its enucleation on March 20, 1935. The evidence discloses that the second injury occurred sometime after respondent had left his employment with the WERA and while he was walking along a trial toward a canoe which he was then building for himself.

The WERA was created by Laws 1933, c. 8, p. 103, which is entitled: 'An Act to relieve the people of the state from hardships and suffering caused by unemployment; creating and defining the duties of an emergency relief administration, and making an appropriation for such purpose; providing penalties, and declaring that this act shall take effect immediately.'

Section 1 of the act, page 103, recites that the public health, peace, and safety of the state and of each county, city, and town therein are imperiled by the existing and threatened deprivation of a considerable number of their respective inhabitants of the necessaries of life, owing to the economic depression; that such condition is a matter of public concern, state and local, and that the correction thereof is a state, county, city, and town purpose, the consummation of which requires, as a necessary incident, the furnishing of public aid to individuals; and that in the existing emergency the relief and assistance provided for by the act are vitally necessary to supplement local relief work and to encourage and stimulate local effort in the same direction.

Section 2 of the act, page 104, defines two types of relief to be afforded: (1) 'Work relief,' meaning wages paid by municipal corporations to persons who are unemployed or whose employment is inadequate to provide the necessaries of life, from moneys specifically appropriated or contributed for that purpose during the emergency period, for the performance of services or labor connected with work undertaken by such corporation independently of work under a contract or for which an annual appropriation has been made; and (2) 'Home relief,' meaning shelter, fuel, food, clothing, water, light, necessary household supplies, medical supplies, and medical attendance.

Section 3, page 105, vests the administration of such emergency relief in a state agency known as the emergency relief administration, referred to herein as the WERA, headed by a commission of five persons appointed by the Governor of the state.

Section 6, page 108, creates within each county a county welfare board, which shall be responsible for the administration and supervision of work and home relief within the county. By section 7, page 109, the county board is, in all matters, made subject to the supervision, direction, and control of the WERA.

Section 8, page 110, provides that the WERA may make grants in aid to a county or city or to a county welfare board for the prosecution of relief work; further, that the WERA shall require, in support of applications for grants in aid, such plans, estimates, and other information as it may deem advisable to be submitted, and may specify the terms and conditions in connection therewith.

Section 11, page 111, makes it the duty of the county welfare board, among other things, to ascertain the extent of unemployment existing in the county, make investigations and surveys as to the need for public works not required to be let by contract, and determine, from time to time, whether the employment constitutes work relief, how the available employment shall best and most equitably be apportioned among the needy unemployed, how long them shall be employed, and how much compensation they shall receive.

Under this act, the WERA engaged in various types of projects, including the construction of schools and other public buildings, the construction and maintenance of public highways, and the construction of sewers, bridges, etc. The projects were carried on in several ways, one of which was by making grants in aid to the political subdivisions which carried on their own operations independently of the WERA; another was by direct operation of the WERA itself after the municipality had initiated or sponsored the project, that is to say, the WERA did all the engineering, supervision, and work of construction, employed the workmen, using relief labor when available, and paid them with its checks from funds received partly from the federal emergency relief administration and partly from the $10,000,000 bond issue authorized by the state Legislature under chapter 65, p. 336, Laws 1933.

The Everson city hall project was carried forward according to the second of the above methods, that is, it was constructed by, and under the direction of, the WERA. The town of Everson itself was not engaged in building the city hall, either through a grant in aid or otherwise, nor did in employ respondent directly or indirectly. The WERA, acting as a purely relief agency of the state,...