State v. Olson, 24172.
| Decision Date | 31 March 1933 |
| Docket Number | 24172. |
| Citation | 172 Wash. 424,20 P.2d 850 |
| Parties | STATE v. OLSON. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Skagit County; G. A. Joiner, Judge.
Action by the State against Carl Olson. From a judgment of dismissal, the State appeals.
Affirmed.
John H Dunbar, Harry Ellsworth Foster, and Granville Egan, all of Olympia, for the State.
C. J Henderson and Alfred McBee, both of Mount Vernon, for respondent.
The state commenced this action in the superior court for Skagit county against the defendant, Olson, looking to the recovery from him of an alleged unwarranted excess of an award made to him by the State Department of Labor and Industries for injury to his right eye as a permanent partial disability. Olson, by his counsel, demurred to the complaint. The demurrer was by the court sustained, and, the state electing not to plead further, final judgment of dismissal was accordingly rendered, from which the state has appealed to this court. The controlling facts alleged in the complaint may be sufficiently summarized as follows (our quotations are from the language of the complaint):
About October 7, 1926, Olson sustained an injury to his right eye while engaged in an extrahazardous employment in Skagit county. About October 14, 1926, he filed with the department a report of his injury, making claim of compensation for his resulting disability under our Workmen's Compensation Law (Rem. Rev. Stat. § 7673 et sep.).
Thereafter the department 'received written advice of the Skagit Safety Council that the payment for permanent partial disability made by the said state department aforesaid was excessive and that the said defendant had not suffered the total loss of the sight of the right eye.' Thereafter, about April 27, 1928, the defendant was examined by Dr. F. J. Van Kirk and Dr. S. S. Howe. Dr. Van Kirk reported to the department his opinion 'that not more than fifty per cent of the vision of the right eye was gone.' Dr. Howe did not make any further report than as he had theretofore made to the department. About January 3, 1928, the department held a hearing at which the defendant was present, and admitted 'that in his opinion the disability to the said right eye was less than total loss of vision but more than fifty per cent loss of vision.' The complaint contains further allegations, in substance, that the defendant has refused to submit himself to further examination by physicians or eye specialists.
The prayer of the complaint is, in substance, that the defendant be required to submit himself...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stevedoring Services of America, Inc. v. Eggert
...for workmen, ... their families and dependents"--would be emasculated. Id. at 541, 477 P.2d 175. 6 See also State ex rel. Dunbar v. Olson, 172 Wash. 424, 20 P.2d 850 (1933) (denying recovery of excessive payment mistakenly made by Although this court denied recoupment of overpayment mistake......
-
Birrueta v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. of State
...benefits already paid, even if they were overpaid due to a “mistake of fact on the part of the department.” State ex rel. Dunbar v. Olson , 172 Wash. 424, 427, 20 P.2d 850 (1933), We later reaffirmed that decision, noting that “[f]or 36 years following Dunbar, the legislature has acceded to......
-
Johner, Matter of
...were exclusive and provided the only procedures for obtaining and enforcing an award. 409 P.2d at 1003. Similarly, in State v. Olson, 172 Wash. 424, 20 P.2d 850 (1933), the court held that an absence of a statutory provision precluded the recoupment of funds paid to an employee because of a......
-
Stuckey v. Department of Labor and Industries of State of Wash.
...of benefits is found on appeal to have been made "pursuant to an erroneous adjudication...." Beginning with State ex rel. Dunbar v. Olson, 172 Wash. 424, 20 P.2d 850 (1933), the court held where a claimant received payments later determined to be greater than the amount to which the claiman......