Van Blaricom v. Export Lumber Company

• Decision Date: 02 December 1932
• Docket Number: 5880
• Citation: 52 Idaho 459,16 P.2d 990
• Parties: CONRAD A. VAN BLARICOM, Respondent, v. EXPORT LUMBER COMPANY, Employer, and HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, Surety, Appellants
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

16 P.2d 990

52 Idaho 459

CONRAD A. VAN BLARICOM, Respondent, v. EXPORT LUMBER COMPANY, Employer, and HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, Surety, Appellants

No. 5880

Supreme Court of Idaho

December 2, 1932

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW-CONSTRUCTION-COMPENSATION AGREEMENT-MODIFICATION.

1. Compensation law is to be liberally construed, and proceedings thereunder are not to be governed by strict court procedure.

2. To modify compensation agreement for fraud or mistake application must be filed setting forth facts on which modification is sought, and evidence must sustain allegations.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, for Kootenai County. Hon. Bert A. Reed, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Law. Judgment for plaintiff. Reversed and remanded.

Reversed and remanded, with instructions. No costs allowed.

Randall & Danskin and Robert H. Elder, for Appellants.

The agreement settling the compensation and award of the respondent of February 10, 1928, was a final, binding award approved by the Industrial Accident Board, and there was no greater or any other obligation created by the agreement than existed and would have been awarded under the provisions of the act, for such agreement could only be approved by the board when the terms thereof conformed with the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. (C. S., sec. 6262; Haugse v. Sommers Bros. Mfg. Co., 43 Idaho 452, 254 P. 212.)

J. Ward Arney, for Respondent, cites no authorities on points decided.

Ralph S. Nelson, Amicus Curiae.

GIVENS J. Lee, C. J., and Budge, Varian and Leeper, JJ., concur.

OPINION

GIVENS, J.

Respondent was injured in the course of his employment, January 4, 1927, necessitating the amputation of his left leg about one and one-half inches below the knee. He was discharged by physicians as surgically healed, December 20, 1927.

February 10, 1928, respondent and appellant entered into a compensation agreement, later approved by the Industrial Accident Board, March 2, 1928.

July 1, 1931, respondent filed an application for additional surgical treatment and compensation during the time he would be incapacitated by reason of such additional treatment, such additional treatment being requested because the stump of the leg became so sore and tender that respondent could scarcely wear and use his artificial limb, such condition evidently arising because there was not sufficient tissue below the stub to properly act as a cushion between the bone and the artificial limb.

A hearing resulted in no decision, and October 30, 1931, respondent filed a new application claiming a change in physical condition authorizing a modification of the original award.

Appellants raised the statute of limitations, C. S., sec. 6269, as amended sec. 6, chap. 222, Sess. Laws 1931, and that respondent plead neither fraud, mistake nor any agreement different than the written one referred to above.

There was no change of condition; hence if relief is to be afforded respondent, it must be on some other basis.

While the Workmen's Compensation Law is to be liberally construed to further its beneficent purposes, and proceedings thereunder are not to be governed by the strict court procedure (In re Bones (on rehearing), 48 Idaho 85 94, 280 P. 223, 226; McNeil v. Panhandle...