Talbot v. Industrial Ins. Commission
| Decision Date | 12 August 1919 |
| Docket Number | 15116. |
| Citation | 108 Wash. 231,183 P. 84 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | TALBOT v. INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE COMMISSION. |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, Clallam County; John M. Ralston, Judge.
Claim by F. O. Talbot, an injured employé, for increased allowance under the Workmen's Compensation Act because of his permanent disability, etc., against the Industrial Insurance Commission. From a judgment reversing a decision of the Commission, rejecting and disallowing the claim, the Commission appeals. Affirmed.
W. V Tanner, D. E. Twitchell, and G. H. Bucey, all of Olympia, for appellant.
Donworth Todd & Higgins, of Seattle, for respondent.
This is an appeal by the Industrial Insurance Commission from a judgment of the superior court for Clallam county reversing a decision of the commission which rejected and disallowed the claim of F. O. Talbot, made for an increased allowance because of his permanent disability and of his being so physically helpless as to require the constant services of an attendant.
The controlling facts are not in dispute, and may be summarized as follows: On May 12, 1917, Talbot was injured while employed in an extrahazardous occupation. His case was classified by the commission as one of 'permanent total disability.' The commission awarded him an allowance of $20 per month. Talbot's injuries were such that he is and has been at all times since he was injured, not only totally disabled, in the sense that his earning power is entirely destroyed, but he has been at all times since he was injured 'so physically helpless as to require the services of a constant attendant'; and this he claims entitles him to an increased allowance of $20 per month so long as such requirement shall continue, resting his claim upon the conceded facts as to his condition and the provisions of chapter 28, Laws of 1917, amending the Workmen's Compensation Act.
On May 12, 1917, at the time Talbot was injured, the Workmen's Compensation Act as then in force fixed the compensation for injured workmen in cases of 'permanent total disability' at a minimum of $20 per month and a maximum of $35 per month. The award of $20 per month and the refusal to award an increased monthly allowance, as claimed by Talbot, was rested by the commission upon the theory that the law as existing at the time he was injured is the only law controlling the amount of monthly allowance he is entitled to. The Legislature of 1917 amended that paragraph by adding thereto the following:
'In case of total permanent disability, if the character of the injury is such as to render the workman so physically helpless as to require the services...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Indus. Accident Comm'n
...Angeles County Retirement Bd., 59 Cal. App. 2d 413 .) The only case cited in support of the contrary view is Talbot v. Industrial Ins. Com., 108 Wash. 231 [183 P. 84, 187 P. 410]. It is sufficient to note that in a subsequent case the same court which decided it stated that the Talbot case ......
-
Lynch v. State
...is not out of harmony with our present view of the law upon the subject or with the weight of authority thereon. It will be noted that in the Talbot case the court did not say that the allowance of increased payment was in 'no sense' a retroactive application of the amendatory statute, but ......
-
In re Pahlke
... ... Roxana Pet. Corp., 132 Kan. 854, 297 P. 668; Talbot v ... Industrial Ins. Com., 108 Wash. 231, 183 P. 84; Cooley, ... ...
-
Gauthier v. Penobscot Chem. Fiber Co.
...J. Law, 128, 95 Atl. 627. Two cases are cited which at first blush might seem to be at variance with our conclusion. Talbot v. Ind. Commission, 108 Wash. 231, 183 Pac. 84, 187 Pac. 410; Carlson v. Dist. Court, 131 Minn. 96, 154 N. W. 661. But in neither of these cases is the effect of the c......