Schmidt v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau
| Decision Date | 30 December 1943 |
| Docket Number | 6901. |
| Citation | 13 N.W.2d 610,73 N.D. 245 |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied April 4, 1944.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. When the Workmen's Compensation Bureau entertains an application to share in the Workmen's Compensation Fund and determines that the applicant is an employee, was injured in the course of his employment, and, upon hearing, awards him compensation, it has an exclusive continuing jurisdiction over the case and over the right of the employee to share further in the fund, with power to increase or diminish the compensation as the occasion requires.
2. The district court has no jurisdiction to determine the right of any applicant to share in the Workmen's Compensation Fund except in a case where the bureau denies compensation upon some ground going to the basis of the claimant's right to share.
3. Where an applicant applies to the bureau for leave to share in the fund upon the ground that he is suffering from a disease which was accelerated by his employment and the bureau denies his claim on the ground the alleged disability is not due to a disease proximately caused by his employment and upon appeal to the district court the applicant attempts to prove injuries resulting from an alleged accident, and the record shows that no application was ever made to the bureau for compensation because of said accident and no claim for compensation because of such injuries was ever submitted to the bureau for its determination and the bureau had no opportunity to pass upon such question, it is error for the district court to hear and determine the issue of compensation because of such accident. The applicant must first submit such question to the bureau for its determination.
J K. Murray, of Bismarck, for plaintiff and respondent.
Alvin C. Strutz, Atty. Gen., and P. B. Garberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant and appellant.
On the 19th of August, 1940, plaintiff applied to the bureau for compensation because of alleged injuries received by him in the course of his employment. In this application known as No. 100792 he stated he was suffering from the injurious effect of over-exertion and an "impact caused by vibration of heavy machinery." He termed this a disease and said it was incurred between August 18, 1937, and June 30, 1940. The application was presented as a separate and distinct claim, independent of all others theretofore presented to the bureau. The application was accompanied by a report made by a physician which stated applicant had Physician stated he could not state definitely that the disability was due entirely "to this injury."
The application was received August 20, 1940. On the 16th of September the bureau made its findings and conclusions to the effect that "the alleged disability is not due to a disease proximately caused by the employment," and dismissed the application.
In November of that year, plaintiff appealed to the district court and in his complaint alleged that between August 18, 1937, and June 20, 1940, he was employed by the state highway department and required to do heavy work and heavy lifting, in operating "heavy motorized machinery and equipment of said highway department," and in lifting this machinery and objects he overstrained and overexerted himself; "that the motorized machinery of said Highway Department caused tremendous vibration and impact on the appellant's physical system and body; that during the warm periods of the year, said motors of said machinery became extremely hot, thereby heating plaintiff's body and assisting in the creating of blood pressure higher than normal, thereby seriously injuring the plaintiff's heart; that the plaintiff in the performance of his duties was required to operate road machinery including heavy snowplows in the winter time, in extremely cold weather; that in the performance of appellant's duties, he became severely chilled at various times, and incurred serious colds and bronchial trouble; that in the operation of said highway machinery in the winter time, petitioner was required to go out in the cold, *** thereby incurring extreme chills, which affected his heart and other internal organs of his body, including his liver and kidneys, gall bladder and heart; that by reason of the aforesaid, appellant was forced to quit his employment on the 20th day of June 1940, and he has been under a doctor's care ever since and will be a cripple and invalid for life; that the appellant's disease, sickness and physical condition, as aforesaid, were and are approximately caused by appellant's type and character of work and employment aforementioned."
The answer denies "that the injuries and sickness of appellant was incurred in the course of his employment; defendant and respondent further alleges that the said claim was based only and alone on the contention that "overexertion and injurious impact caused by vibration of heavy machinery" was the proximate cause of the disability from which the appellant suffered, and that a copy of the said claim filed by the said appellant is hereto attached and made a part of this answer as though set forth at length herein." The answer further denies that the plaintiff was injured in the course of his employment and alleges his disability is due to a disease not proximately caused by his employment.
Almost two years elapsed before the case was finally heard in the district court. October 9, 1942, the court rendered a memorandum opinion, holding with the plaintiff. On October 30, 1942, defendant gave notice of motion to reopen the case for the taking of further testimony. This motion to reopen was supported by affidavits wherein it is stated: That the sole ground for the application presented to the bureau was a disease which had been incurred sometime between August 18, 1937, and June 20, 1940, and that this disease was a disease of the heart caused by the vibration of heavy machinery and by overexertion in operating the machinery; that plaintiff never claimed any damages for the injury alleged to have been suffered on May 8, 1940; that the trial of this issue in the district court was had without any presentation of the claim to the bureau; that such claim could not now be presented to the bureau because of the lapse of more than one year from the time that the alleged injury had occurred and that because of the lapse of such time the bureau would have no jurisdiction to hear and determine the issue arising over the alleged injury.
The record, so far as this court can ascertain, shows that upon the hearing before the district court the plaintiff relied entirely upon an alleged injury suffered on May 8, 1940.
At the trial defendants had objected to proffered testimony on the ground that such matter was not The court denied the motion upon hearing, and on December 22 made findings of facts and order for judgment in favor of the plaintiff, judgment being entered December 28, 1942.
Incidentally we may state that if the legislative intent to secure speedy, sure, and certain relief to employees is not always attained, the fault often lies with the employees themselves and not in every occasion with the agencies created by the state to hear and determine the complaints. The bureau heard and determined the entire issue in less than four weeks. The applicant did not finish the hearing in the district court on his appeal until more than two years, thereafter, and it was almost a year after that before the appeal was docketed in this court.
The record shows: That on November 23, 1937, the plaintiff applied to the bureau for compensation basing the same upon an injury which he said he received while hauling steel railing on the twelfth of that month. The bureau found that in doing so he had sustained an "injury to abdominal region" and allowed him compensation for all the time he was disabled.
On July 18, 1938, he applied to the bureau for compensation stating that while lifting a heavy rock and removing it from the road he felt a sharp pain in his back and the nature of his injury was an injury to his "back and perhaps some internal injury." He was in the hospital for some time. The bureau allowed him compensation and his hospital expenses.
In November, 1938, plaintiff made application for compensation for an injury received while hauling clay, alleging he had slipped and fallen on his back and hurt his back, that while dumping clay on the roadbed he was thrown from the back of the truck. The bureau allowed him compensation therefor, and his medical expenses.
On May 10 1940, plaintiff applied for compensation because of an alleged injury he said he received on May 9th, while operating machinery, his allegation being that while he "was leaning over back of tractor seat pulling a rope to trip scraper while tractor was going over dump pile causing tractor to buck in rear; this caused tractor seat to strike operator on right side, thereby fracturing two ribs." He...
To continue reading
Request your trial