Walz v. The Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

• Decision Date: 08 March 1930
• Docket Number: 29,304
• Citation: 285 P. 595,130 Kan. 203
• Parties: FRED WALZ, Appellee, v. THE MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

285 P. 595

130 Kan. 203

FRED WALZ, Appellee, v. THE MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant

No. 29,304

Supreme Court of Kansas

March 8, 1930

Decided January, 1930.

Appeal from Atchison district court; WILLIAM A. JACKSON, judge.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT--Approval of Award by Commissioner--Authority to Set Aside. The hearing of a workman's claim for compensation was held on July 23. On August 1 the examiner made an award. On August 12 the award was approved and filed by the commissioner of compensation. On August 20 the commissioner, on his own motion, made an order setting aside the award and directing a rehearing of the claim on a specified date. Held, the order was void.

W. P. Waggener, J. M. Challiss, O. P. May and B. P. Waggener, all of Atchison, for the appellant.

Ralph U. Pfouts and Steadman Ball, both of Atchison, for the appellee.

OPINION

BURCH, J.:

The question in this case is whether the commissioner of compensation may, on his own motion, and without regard to the authority conferred by section 28 of the workmen's compensation act (Laws 1927, ch. 232), set aside an award duly made, approved and filed, and grant a rehearing of the claim for compensation.

Walz, an employee of the railway company, sought compensation for an injury, and the matter was heard by an examiner in the city of Atchison on July 23, 1929. On August 1 the examiner made an award denying compensation on the ground written claim for compensation was not made within ninety days after the accident. On August 12 the award was approved and filed by the commissioner of compensation. On August 20 the commissioner made the following order:

"ORDER OF REHEARING.

"Now on this 20th day of August, 1929, the commissioner does on his own motion set aside his award filed on August 12, 1929, in the above-entitled matter, and does hereby order a rehearing of this claim for September 7, 1929, at 10:30 a. m., in the district court room at Atchison, Kansas."

The employer appealed to the district court, the district court dismissed the appeal, and the employer appeals to this court.

One of the chief defects of the old workmen's compensation act was the method of administering it, and it turned out to be an act for the promotion of litigation. The act was revised in an effort to make it a simple administrative measure whereby compensation claims might be easily determined without delay, uncertainty and expense. Accomplishment of the purpose necessarily depended on nature of procedure, and the procedure was specified in detail.

The manner in which the act is to be interpreted with respect to procedure was fully considered in the case of Norman v Consolidated Cement Co., 127 Kan. 643, 274 P. 233. The Norman case reached this court by appeal. The act made no provision for that procedural step, and the appeal was dismissed. In determining the specific question the entire act was considered, and...