Sauter v. Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Ry.
| Decision Date | 01 July 1927 |
| Docket Number | 38440 |
| Parties | HENRY A. SAUTER, Appellee, v. CEDAR RAPIDS & IOWA CITY RAILWAY et al., Appellants |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
REHEARING DENIED OCTOBER 1, 1927.
Appeal from Linn District Court.--A. B. CLARK, Judge.
This is a proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Law of Iowa. The lower court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, a claimant under such law, on a memorandum of settlement made between him and the defendants, his employer and insurer. Defendants appeal.
Reversed.
Chandler Woodbridge, for appellants.
Grimm Wheeler, Elliott & Shuttleworth, for appellee.
DE GRAFF, J.
The appellee sustained an injury on January 25, 1924, arising out of and in the course of his employment by the Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Railway. On or about October 3, 1924, a memorandum of settlement was made between the claimant and the employer under which the claimant was to be paid weekly compensation of $ 15 per week during his disability from such injury. At the time such agreement was made, the duration of the disability was undetermined. Compensation payments were made to him until April 1, 1925, at which time a disagreement arose between the employer and the claimant as to the duration of the disability. The claimant was ordered by the industrial commissioner to be examined by Dr. O. J. Fay, of Des Moines, Iowa, the medical counselor of the industrial commissioner. On April 23, 1925, the medical counselor reported to the industrial commissioner that there was neither permanent nor temporary disability existing in the claimant at that time.
On June 11, 1925, and after the examination report was made by Dr. Fay to the industrial commissioner, the claimant filed an application for an arbitration hearing. This application was resisted by the employer, on the grounds that the case was not one for arbitration, but was one for reopening under Section 1457, Code of 1924, and that no disability existed. The case appears to have been dormant until about July 7, 1926, when the claimant filed a petition for review and reopening before the industrial commissioner. The employer stood on his answer to the former application for arbitration. The record before us does not show what ruling, if any, was made by the industrial commissioner on the petition for review and reopening.
The record shows that the claimant thereafter filed a dismissal of his petition for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Sauter v. Rapids
-
Rocho Bros. v. Boone Dairy, Inc.
...214 N.W. 685 204 Iowa 391 ROCHO BROTHERS, Incorporated, Appellant, v. BOONE ... for rent, damage to building, wasted brine, cost of city ... water, expense of horseshoeing, compensation for ... ...