Union Sanitary Mfg. Co. v. Davis

• Court: Indiana Appellate Court
• Writing for the Court: FELT
• Citation: Union Sanitary Mfg. Co. v. Davis , 63 Ind.App. 548, 114 N.E. 872 (Ind. App. 1917)
• Decision Date: 23 January 1917
• Docket Number: No. 9661.,9661.
• Parties: UNION SANITARY MFG. CO. v. DAVIS.

63 Ind.App. 548

114 N.E. 872

UNION SANITARY MFG. CO.

v.DAVIS.

No. 9661.

Appellate Court of Indiana.

Jan 23, 1917.

Appeal from an Award of the Industrial Board.

Proceedings for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Frank L. Davis against the Union Sanitary Manufacturing Company. From an award of the Industrial Board, the manufacturing company, the employer, appeals and Davis, the employé, moves to dismiss. Motion to dismiss appeal overruled.

Kane & Kane, of Noblesville, for appellant. Gentry & Campbell, of Noblesville, for appellee.

FELT, C. J.

This is an appeal from an award of the Industrial Board of Indiana. Appellee has moved to dismiss the appeal, and the first reason assigned therefor is that appellant filed no motion for a new trial after the final award was made by the board. The record shows a finding and an award by the board, and an application by appellant for a review by the full board of the award, which was granted, and the case was heard by all the members of the Industrial Board, and the award made and entered, from which this appeal was taken.

Appellant has assigned as error: (1) The award is not sustained by sufficient evidence. (2) The award is contrary to the evidence. (3) The award is not sustained by the finding of facts stated by the board. (4) The award is contrary to the finding of facts stated by the board. (5) The award is contrary to law. (6) The board erred in its rulings of law upon the facts found. (7) The board erred in its award of compensation upon the facts found.

[1] The Workmen's Compensation Act (Acts 1915, p. 392) provides:

“Sec. 59. The board or any of its members shall hear the parties at issue and their representatives and witnesses and shall determine the dispute in any summary manner. The award, together with a statement of the findings of fact, rulings of law and any other matters pertinent to the question at issue shall be filed with the record of proceedings, and a copy of the award shall immediately be sent to the parties in dispute.

Sec. 60. If an application for review is made to the board within seven days from the date of the award, the full board, if the first hearing was not held before the full board, shall review the evidence or if deemed advisable, as soon as practicable hear the parties at issue, their representatives and witnesses, and shall make an award and file same in like manner as specified in the foregoing section.

Sec. 61. An award of the board, as provided in section 59, if not reviewed in due time, or an award of the board upon such review as provided in section 60, shall be conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact, but either party to the dispute may within thirty days from the date of the award appeal to the Appellate Court for errors of law under the same terms and conditions as govern appeals in ordinary civil actions. The board, of its own motion, may certify questions of law to said Appellate Court for its decision and determination.”

An examination of the whole act shows clearly that the intention of the Legislature was to provide compensation and the proper award with a minimum of legal procedure. The provisions for a review afford opportunity of presenting to the full board all questions relied upon by the aggrieved party, and in the main serve the same purpose that a motion for a new trial serves in a civil action. At all events it is evident the Legislature did not contemplate ingrafting on the procedure provided by the act all the requirements relating to appeals from judgments in ordinary civil suits....