State ex rel. Wright v. Potlatch forests, Inc.

• Decision Date: 13 December 1939
• Docket Number: 6715
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex Rel. CALVIN E. WRIGHT, State Auditor, Respondent, v. POTLATCH FORESTS, INC., and WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION EXCHANGE, Appellants

97 P.2d 394

60 Idaho 797

STATE ex Rel. CALVIN E. WRIGHT, State Auditor, Respondent, v. POTLATCH FORESTS, INC., and WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION EXCHANGE, Appellants

No. 6715

Supreme Court of Idaho

December 13, 1939

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION-DEATH BENEFITS-NON-EXISTENCE OF DEPENDENTS-INDUSTRIAL ADMINISTRATION FUND-FILING OF CLAIM-DEDUCTION OF COMPENSATION PAID.

1. The state need not file its claim within one year after death of an employee without dependents, but is entitled to payment without having made any claim as soon as the year has elapsed, and if order therefor is not entered, a claim may be made on behalf of the state for an appropriate order. (I. C A., sec. 43-1101, subd. 6, as amended by Sess. Laws 1935 chap. 147.)

2. Where no dependents of deceased employee appear and payment provided for in such cases by statute is to be made to the state for benefit of the Industrial Administration Fund, the $1,000 payment is to be reduced in the amount of payments of compensation made to the employee between time of his injury and date of his death. (I. C. A., secs. 43-1202, 43-1101 subd. 6, as amended by Sess. Laws 1935, chap. 147, secs 43-1102, 43-1106, as amended by Sess. Laws 1937, chap. 134.)

APPEAL from Industrial Accident Board.

Claim by the state for compensation, under Workmen's Compensation Law, for death of Matt E. Salo, an employee who left no dependents. From an order of the board awarding payment of $ 1,000 into the Industrial Administration Fund, the employer and insurance carrier appeal. Modified and affirmed.

Affirmed.

Nelson & Nelson, for Appellants.

Compensation having been paid voluntarily an injured man before his death by the employer, if the state of Idaho does not file its claim within one year from the death, it is not entitled to $ 1,000 or any part thereof from the employer and surety. (State v. Smith & State Ins. Fund, ante, p. 316, 91 P.2d 389; State v. Bunker Hill etc. Co., 49 Idaho 557, 290 P. 209, I. C. A., secs. 43-1101, 43-1202.)

The employer is entitled to deduct the amount paid an injured man, as compensation before his death, from the $ 1,000 payable to the state after his death. (Pacific Employer Ins. Co. v. Pillsbury, 14 F.Supp. 156; I. C. A., secs. 43-1103, 43-1112; Idaho Const., art. 3, sec. 14, art. 7, sec. 5; Dumas v. Bryan, 35 Idaho 557, 207 P. 720; State v. Workmen's Compensation Exch., 59 Idaho 256, 81 P.2d 1101.)

J. W. Taylor, Attorney General, and R. W. Beckwith, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

It is not necessary for the state to file a claim within one year from the death of the employee, where no claim for compensation has been filed by anyone claiming to be a dependent of deceased. (Sec. 43-1101, I. C. A., as amended by chap. 147, 1935 Sess. Laws, subsec. 6; State v. Workmen's Compensation Exch., 59 Idaho 256, 81 P.2d 1101; State v. Smith & State Ins. Fund, ante, p. 316, 91 P.2d 389.)

Surety and employer cannot deduct compensation paid injured employee between date of injury and date of death, from the $ 1,000 required to be paid into the Industrial Administration Fund of the state. (Sec. 43-1101, I. C. A., as amended by chap. 147, 1935 Sess. Laws, subsec. 6; State v. Workmen's Compensation Exch., supra; State v. Smith & State Ins. Fund, supra.)

AILSHIE, C. J. Budge, Givens, Holden, JJ., and MORGAN, J., concurring.

OPINION

AILSHIE, C. J.

This case arose from an accident which occurred to Matt E. Salo October 9, 1936, while he was engaged in the course of his employment with Potlatch Forests, Inc. He received an injury from a log rolling over him, which resulted in his death February 2, 1938. Compensation was paid to Salo regularly until the date of his death amounting to $ 673.20; and the additional sum of $ 190 was paid as funeral expenses. After the lapse of more than a year from the date of the employee's death, no dependent having made application for compensation, the state filed its claim for $ 1,000 to be paid into the state treasury for the benefit of the Industrial Administration Fund. The board entered an order requiring payment of the sum of $ 1,000 as claimed by the state. The employer and the surety have appealed from the order.

The contentions made by appellants divide themselves into two propositions:

First, it is contended that the state, not having filed its claim within one year after the death of the employee, is barred under sec. 43-1202, I. C. A., from urging the claim at this time.

In the second place, it is contended that if the state is not barred from urging its claim at this time, nevertheless, the appellants are entitled to a credit of all moneys paid to the employee as benefits or compensation between the time of his injury and the date of his death.

Addressing ourselves to the first proposition, we are at once confronted with chapter 147 of the 1935 Session Laws, and especially the provisions of subsec. 6 of sec. 43-1101, I. C. A., as amended by that act. In order to have before us the section as it read prior to the amendment and also as it stood after the amendment, we are setting the section out in full and italicizing the amendatory matter inserted, and placing in brackets words omitted from the section by the amendment:

"6. In case there are two or more classes of persons entitled to compensation under this section and the apportionment of such compensation, above provided, would result in injustice, the board may, in its discretion, modify the apportionment to meet the requirement of the case. In case [there are no dependents of deceased employee,] no claim for compensation is made by a dependent of deceased employee and filed with the Industrial Accident Board within one year after the death or in case a claim is made and filed within such year and no dependency proven the employer shall pay into the State Treasury to be deposited in the Industrial Administration Fund the sum of $ 1,000.00. If, after an employer has paid the said sum of $ 1,000.00 into the State Treasury, a claim is made and dependency proven by a person who during the one year after the death in which a claim may be made was either a minor or mentally incompetent and who during the said year had no person or representative legally qualified under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law to make a claim in his behalf. The said sum of $ 1,000.00 shall be repaid to such employer on the order of the Industrial Accident Board; provided, that nothing in this Act shall be construed as extending or increasing the time during which a claim for compensation by a dependent may be made."

Under the statute as it read prior to the amendment, it was held that the burden was cast upon the state, when claiming the thousand dollar payment, to file its claim and prove that the employee left no dependent. In re Stewart, 49 Idaho 557, 290 P. 209; Williams v. Intermountain Fireworks Co., 55 Idaho 28, 37 P.2d 231; in State ex rel. Parsons v. Workmen's Compensation Exchange, 59 Idaho 256, 81 P.2d 1101, we held the statute valid requiring the employer to pay to the state the thousand dollars in case of the death of the injured employee leaving no dependents. To the same effect, see Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Pillsbury, 88 F.2d 443, 445.

Later, in the case of State ex rel. Wright v. Smith & State Ins. Fund, ante, p. 316, 91 P.2d 389, we considered the effect of the amendment to the statute upon a voluntary payment of compensation under the last sentence of sec. 43-1202, I. C. A., and held that the amendment of sec. 43-1101, I. C. A., did not repeal or affect that provision of the previously existing statute. It should be observed, however, that in the latter case we said (p. 393):

"The effect of the amendment is to make proof that the deceased employee left no dependent unnecessary if no claim for compensation be made within a year after the death and if no payment of compensation be made voluntarily."

It is clear that the legislature made the amendment to the statute with the intention of fixing the definite conditions on which the $ 1,000 benefit should be paid into the state treasury, viz.:

"In case no claim for compensation is made by a dependent of deceased...