Rodius v. Coeur d'Alene Mill Co.

• Decision Date: 28 September 1928
• Docket Number: 5145
• Citation: 271 P. 1,46 Idaho 692
• Parties: NELLIE RODIUS, ESTHER ANDERSON RODIUS (Now ESTHER WORKMAN), and MARIE ANDERSON, a Minor, Respondents, v. COEUR D'ALENE MILL COMPANY, Employer, and UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, Surety, Appellants
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

271 P. 1

46 Idaho 692

NELLIE RODIUS, ESTHER ANDERSON RODIUS (Now ESTHER WORKMAN), and MARIE ANDERSON, a Minor, Respondents, v. COEUR D'ALENE MILL COMPANY, Employer, and UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, Surety, Appellants

No. 5145

Supreme Court of Idaho

September 28, 1928

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT-COMPENSATION-AGREEMENT OF EMPLOYER AND SURETY TO PAY-APPROVAL BY INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD-APPLICATION TO VACATOR.

1. Agreement of employer and surety to pay compensation to child of deceased employee, approved by Industrial Accident Board had same effect as award of board.

2. Under C. S., secs. 6269, 6270, application to vacate approval by Industrial Accident Board of agreement by employer and surety to pay compensation should set forth facts on which vacation of approval is sought.

3. Under C. S., sec. 6227, fact that child of deceased employee may be of illegitimate birth is not conclusive that it was not entitled to compensation.

4. On petition by mother of deceased employee to review award or agreement of employer and surety to pay compensation to child of deceased employee, on ground of change in conditions evidence of copy of birth certificate of child, signed by attending physician, that it was illegitimate, did not show such change of condition or fraud as to authorize board to end, diminish or increase compensation under C. S., secs. 6269, 6270.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, for Kootenai County. Hon. W. F. McNaughton, Judge.

From a judgment of the district court affirming an award of the Industrial Accident Board, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Costs to respondents. Petition for rehearing denied.

James F. Ailshie, Jr., and J. R. Smead, for Appellants.

In view of the undisputed facts appearing from the application for compensation and the agreement to pay such compensation which followed and which was entered into pursuant to such application, the agreement is unenforceable. This is especially true in equity. The representation of the status of the child as deceased's stepdaughter was false, was made as a fact and to induce payment of compensation, was material and was believed and relied upon by appellants in entering into said agreement; therefore, the agreement was fraudulently procured and should be rescinded and annulled. (Pomeroy's Eq. Juris., secs. 872, 873, 876, 880, 885, 890, 898, 899.)

If such representation was wilfully false, this constituted actual fraud involving moral delinquency. (Pomeroy's Eq. Juris., secs. 874, and note 2, 886; 26 C. J. , p. 1108, sec. 38.)

And it was fraud, nevertheless, even though the representation was innocently made, because it would operate the same as intentional fraud; and consequently the agreement based thereon should be set aside on the ground of fraud, and for mistake as well. (Brown v. Linn, 50 Colo. 443, 115 P. 906; Wilson v. Robinson, 21 N.M. 422, Ann. Cas. 1918C, 49, 155 P. 732; Jacobson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 132 Minn. 181, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 355, 156 N.W. 251, L. R. A. 1916D, 144; Weise v. Grove, 123 Iowa 585, 99 N.W. 191; Severson v. Kock, 159 Iowa 343, 140 N.W. 220; Pennington v. Roberg, 122 Minn. 295, 142 N.W. 710; Drake v. Fairmont Drain Tile etc. Co., 129 Minn. 145, 151 N.W. 914.)

It is particularly true that in the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Law an agreement arrived at through mistake, or by fraud, or by gross irregularity or the like, should be set aside. (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Shiveley (Ind. App.), 121 N.E. 50; Elliott's Workmen's Compensation Act, pp. 144, 148; Knowles' Workmen's Compensation, p. 99; Dutton v. Sneyd Bycars Co., Ltd., 1 K. B. 414.)

The Idaho Workmen's Compensation Law, which is the Uniform Act so far as its substantive provisions are concerned, intends that agreements made and filed in lieu of an award by the board shall provide for compensation only as contemplated and provided for by the law; and conversely, our law does not intend that persons not entitled to compensation shall receive it by agreement or otherwise. (1 C. S., sec. 6262; McNeil v. Panhandle Lumber Co., 34 Idaho 773, pp. 786, 787, 203 P. 1068.)

Ralph S. Nelson, for Respondents.

The compensation agreement entered into between the parties hereto at Coeur d'Alene on December 29, 1925, when approved by the Industrial Accident Board, had the force and effect of an award and was and is absolutely binding on all the parties thereto. (Smith v. Brown, 81 Ind.App. 667, 144 N.E. 849.)

A compensation agreement or an award is an adjudication of all of the matters in dispute up to the time of its consummation or rendition and neither party can thereafter say it was wrong in any respect, and a petition to review a compensation agreement or an award by the Industrial Accident Board is limited to consideration of facts arising after the making of the original agreement or award. In the agreement it was agreed and stipulated that Marie Anderson was the stepchild of Emil Rodius. That is final. (Franklin County Min. Co. v. Industrial Commission et al., 322 Ill. 555, 153 N.E. 608; Miller v. Keene, 232 Mich. 596, 206 N.W. 524; Indianapolis Pump & Tire Co. v. Surface, 86 Ind.App. 55, 155 N.E. 835; Anderson v. Ford Motor Co., 232 Mich. 500, 205 N.W. 588.)

WM. E. LEE, C. J. Budge, Givens and Taylor, JJ., concur.

OPINION

WM. E. LEE, C. J.

--On the seventh day of November, 1925, while in the employ of the Coeur d'Alene Mill Company, Emil Rodius received a personal injury by accident, arising out of and in the course of his employment, which resulted in his death. Application for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act was made on behalf of his widow, Esther Rodius, and a "stepchild," Marie Anderson. Thereafter, the employer and its surety, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, entered into an agreement with Esther Rodius for the payment of compensation to her and the child. The agreement received the approval of the Industrial Accident Board. In September, 1926, Nellie Rodius, mother of the deceased workman, petitioned the Industrial Accident Board to reopen the case on the ground "that deceased's wife has remarried and is not entitled to compensation" and ...