Tompkins v. George Rinner Const. Co.

• Decision Date: 22 January 1966
• Docket Number: No. 44421,44421
• Citation: 409 P.2d 1001,196 Kan. 244
• Parties: Lucille L. TOMPKINS, Widow of Raymond Evans Tompkins, Sr., Deceased, Appellant, v. GEORGE RINNER CONSTRUCTION CO., Inc., and Western Casualty and Surety Company, Appellees.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 1001

409 P.2d 1001

196 Kan. 244

Lucille L. TOMPKINS, Widow of Raymond Evans Tompkins, Sr. Deceased, Appellant, v. GEORGE RINNER CONSTRUCTION CO., Inc., and Western Casualty and Surety Company, Appellees.

No. 44421.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Jan. 22, 1966.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 23, 1966.

Syllabus by the Court

A workman was killed as a result of an accidental injury. The workmen's compensation director, and, on appeal, the district court, made an award of death benefits to claimant widow, as sole dependent. On appeal to this court it was held the accidental injury did not arise 'out of' the employment and that compensation must be denied (Tompkins v. George Rinner Construction Co., 194 Kan. 278, 398 P.2d 578). During the pendency of the two appeals respondent insurance carrier made the weekly payments to claimant called for by the award. Subsequent to the reversal by this court respondent filed a motion in the district court seeking restitution from claimant of the amount paid to her pending the appeals. The motion was sustained and restitution was ordered. Claimant appealed. Held: (1) The workmen's compensation act provides a procedure of its own covering every phase of the right to compensation and of the procedure for obtaining and enforcing it, which procedure is complete and exclusive; (2) the act contains no provision for 'recovery back' of payments made under an award pending appeals; (3) common law rules relating to the doctrine of restitution are inapplicable, and (4) 'recovery back' is not to be permitted.

J. H. Eschmann, Topeka, argued the cause and L. M. Ascough and John A. Bausch, Topeka, were with him on the brief, for appellant.

Herbert A. Marshall, Topeka, argued the cause and Doral H. Hawks, E. Gene McKinney and Wayne E. Hundley, Topeka, were with him on the brief, for appellees.

PRICE, Justice.

This is the second chapter of a workmen's compensation case.

The question may be stated very briefly.

Where, in an appeal to this court by an employer and its insurance carrier from a judgment affirming an award of compensation by the director, it is ultimately determined that the accidental injury did not arise 'out of' the employment and therefore compensation is to be denied, is the insurance carrier entitled to 'recover back' the payments made by it pending disposition of the appeals?

The district court answered the question in the affirmative.

Claimant--being the widow of the workman who died as a result of his accidental injury--his appealed.

The background of the matter is this:

On March 6, 1963, the workman was killed as a result of injury sustained in an automobile collision. The widow, as sole dependent, made claim for compensation. The full death benefit was awarded by the director. On appeal, the district court, on May 5, 1964, upheld the findings and award of the director and entered judgment awarding to the widow the maximum death benefit in the amount of $13,500.00, payable at the rate of $38.00 per week, together with a funeral allowance of $600.00, as provided by G.S.1961 Supp., 44-510(2).

The employer and its insurance carrier appealed to this court and it was stipulated that the only question presented was whether the fatal accidental injury arose out of and in the course of the employment.

On January 23, 1965, this court reversed, and held there was no substantial evidence in the case to support the conclusion that the workman's fatal injury arose 'out of' the employment and that recovery under the workmen's compensation act must be denied (Tompkins v. George Rinner Construction Co., 194 Kan. 278, 398 P.2d 578).

In due course, the mandate of this court was transmitted to the clerk of the district court pursuant to K.S.A. 60-2106(c).

On April 5, 1965, the employer and its insurance carrier filed a motion in the district court, in the same case, for restitution of the sum of $2,394.00, that amount being the total of the weekly payments made to the widow during the pendency of the appeals. The motion alleged that by this court's decision it had been determined that the widow was not entitled to recover any payments for workmen's compensation, and prayed for judgment against her in the above amount.

Following a hearing, the district court, on June 30, 1965, sustained the motion for restitution on the ground that the effect of this court's decision, above, was that claimant widow was not entitled to any compensation and that it is fundamental that if a claimant recovers something on a void judgment or on a judgment that is later determined to be totally incorrect--then restitution must follow--citing Holloway v. Peoples Water Co., 100 kan. 414, 167 P. 265, 2 A.L.R. 161, where, referring to 'restitution' it was said:

'At common law the word was used to denote the return or restoration of a specific thing or condition, and the writ of restitution pay to restore after reversal of a judgment, what the party had lost.' (pp. 423, 424, 167 P. p. 270.)

Claimant widow has appealed from that ruling.

For convenience, in discussing the question raised by this appeal the claimant widow, a workman, or his dependents, will be referred to as claimant. An employer and/or the insurance carrier, will be referred to as respondent.

Claimant first contends that under the workmen's compensation act the district court had no jurisdiction to entertain a post-appeal motion such as was filed, citing Gray v. Hercules Powder Co., 160 Kan. 767, Syl. 2, 165 P.2d 447.

We pass that point, however, and go to the basic fundamental question involved--the right to 'recover back'--as stated at the beginning of this opinion.

In support of the district court's judgment ordering restitution respondent contends that by this court's decision it was conclusively determined that the claimant had no right at any time to compensation on account of the death of her husband and therefore has no right to retain any payments which had been made to her; that the provisions of the workmen's compensation law requiring payment of compensation pending appeals are for the protection of claimants who are justly entitled thereto and are not intended to result in unjust enrichment of claimants who had no valid claim or right to compensation ab initio; that considerations of every day common justice dictate that 'recovery back' must be allowed, and that it is inconceivable to say that one should be permitted to retain money to which he had no right in the first place. In support, attention is called to 5 Am.Jur.2d, Appeal and Error, § 997, p. 424, to the effect that all proceedings taken under a judgment are dependent for their validity on the judgment being sustained, and when it is reversed or set aside the party who has received the benefit thereof must make restitution to the other party of money or property received under it, and to 2 Am.Jur.2d, Administrative Law, § 775, p. 676, to the effect that it is a principle of general application that one against whom an erroneous judgment or decree has been rendered and carried into effect is, in the event of a reversal of such judgment, entitled to be restored to that which he has lost thereby. Reference also is made to Bank v. Elliott, 60 Kan. 172, 55 P. 880, and Hoppas v. Bremer, 119 Kan. 411, 239 P. 961.

Claimant, on the other hand, contends that the workmen's compensation act establishes and provides a procedure of its own covering every phase of the right to compensation and that such procedure is complete and exclusive; that a compensation award is unlike a 'judgment' in that it is flexible and subject to review and modification under certain circumstances; that under the circumstances of this case respondent could reap the benefit of paying a lesser sum in the event of claimant's remarriage [K.S.A. 44-510(2)(d)]; that K.S.A. 44-556 provides that payments are to be made pending appeal to the district court and to this court and if the legislature had intended that they could be recovered back in event of reversal by this court it would have so provided; that it is not the intention and spirit of the act to allow a respondent to recover back money paid under an award which already has been spent by a claimant for living expenses, otherwise there would have been no purpose in requiring payments to be made pending an appeal--and therefore common law rules relating to the general doctrine of restitution have no application.

Other than a general statement found in 101 C.J.S. Workmen's Compensation § 835, p. 145, to the effect that where compensation is lawfully paid to one entitled thereto by the terms of an award the recipient cannot be required to pay it back unless the award was void or was secured by fraud--neither of which is the case here--the parties cite no authority bearing on the question. During oral argument of the appeal counsel for respondent frankly stated that he knew of no instance where, under similar facts and circumstances--'recovery back' had been sought. The question appears to be a new one in this jurisdiction.

The workmen's compensation act establishes a procedure of its own covering every phase of the right to compensation and of the procedure for obtaining and enforcing it, which procedure is complete and exclusive in itself (Anchor Casualty Co. v. Wise, 172 Kan. 539, 241 P.2d 484, Teague v. George, 188 Kan. 809, 812, 365 P.2d 1087).

The 'Obligation' of the workmen's compensation act (K.S.A. 44-501) is that if in any employment to which the act applies, personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment is caused to a workman, his employer (or, as here, respondent insurance carrier--see K.S.A. 44-532) shall, subject to provisions of the act be liable to pay compensation to the workman in accordance with the provisions of the act.

K.S.A. 44-556 provides that the perfection of an appeal to the district court shall not stay the payment of compensation due for the ten-week period next preceding the...