Washabaugh v. Bartlett Collins Glass Co., Case Number: 25828
| Decision Date | 24 March 1936 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 25828 |
| Citation | 177 Okla. 159,1936 OK 294,57 P.2d 1162 |
| Parties | WASHABAUGH, Adm'r, et al. v. BARTLETT COLLINS GLASS CO. et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. MASTER AND SERVANT - Workmen's Compensation Law - Award Abated at Death of Claimant Under Former Law.
Prior to the enactment of chapter 29, S. L. 1933, an award under the Workmen's Compensation Act was personal to the employee and abated at his death.
2. STATUTES - Construction - Retroactive Effect.
Statutes are to be construed as having a prospective operation unless the purpose and intention of the Legislature to give them a retrospective effect is expressly declared or is necessarily implied from the language used. In case of doubt the doubt must be resolved against the retrospective effect. Good v. Keel, 29 Okla. 325, 116 P. 777.
3. MASTER AND SERVANT - Workmen's Compensation Law - Statute Providing for Survival of Awards Upon Death of Claimant not Applicable to Injury Sustained and Award Made Prior to Effective Date of Statute.
The provisions of chapter 29, S. L. 1933, amending certain sections of the Workmen's Compensation Law of this state, has no application to an injury sustained and award made prior to the effective date of said act.
4. SAME - Right to Compensation and Obligation to Pay Fixed by Law Existing at Time of Injury.
The right to, compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Law of this state and the obligation to pay such compensation are alike vested and fixed under and by virtue of the provisions of the law existing at the time of the injury.
Original action in the Supreme Court by Wm. Washabaugh, administrator of the estate of Loyd Washabaugh, deceased, et al. to review an order of the State Industrial Commission denying an application for revivor and sustaining a demurrer thereto. Order of the commission affirmed.
Glenn O. Young, for petitioners.
Green & Farmer and the Attorney General, for respondents.
¶1 This is an original action in this court brought by William Washabaugh, administrator of the estate of Loyd Washbaugh, deceased, and the heirs at law of said Loyd Washabaugh, deceased, as petitioners, for the review and vacation of an order made by the State Industrial Commission on August 8, 1934, denying an application for revivor and sustaining the demurrer of the respondents Bartlett Collins Glass Company and its insurance carrier to their application.
¶2 The parties will be hereinafter referred to as petitioners and respondent. The facts are not in dispute. It appears that one Loyd Washabaugh, while in the employ of the respondent Bartlett Collins Glass Company, on March 1, 1929, sustained an accidental personal injury, which was compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Law of this state. Claim for compensation was duly filed with the Industrial Commission and culminated in an award on January 4, 1930, in favor of Loyd Washabaugh in the amount of $723, on account of temporary total disability, and in the amount of $1,350 on account of permanent partial disability. An action was instituted to review th award, but before a determination thereon was had the respondent dismissed the proceedings and effected a settlement with Loyd Washabaugh whereby they paid to him the sum of $1,500. This settlement was had independently and without the approval of the State Industrial Commission. Thereafter, on January 14, 1932, the said Loyd Washabaugh filed with the State Industrial Commission an application to reopen the cause on the ground of change in condition. Pursuant to this application the commission. reopened the matter, heard the evidence, and on October 25, 1932, found that the said Loyd Washabaugh was permanently and totally disabled and awarded him compensation in the sum of $9,000, less the $1,500 previously paid. The respondent thereupon instituted an action in this court to review and vacate said award. However, said award was affirmed by us October 31, 1933 (Bartlett Collins Glass Co. v. Washabaugh, 166 Okla. 90, 26 P.2d 420).
¶3 Mandate of this court showing such affirmance was spread of record by the State Industrial Commission on November 28, 1933. The said Loyd Washabaugh departed this life October 2, 1933, at which time no part of the award of October 25, 1932, had been paid. The respondents thereupon paid the installments which had accrued up to the date of the death of the said Loyd Washabaugh and refused to make any further payments. On November 9, 1933, the petitioners herein filed with the State Industrial Commission their application to have said award revived in their names and payment of the unmatured balance made to them. On June 19, 1934, the respondent and its insurance carrier filed with the commission a suggestion of death of Loyd Washabaugh and their motion to dismiss the action. The application for revivor and motion to dismiss were heard by the commission at the same time, and on August 8, 1934, the commission entered the order which we are now called upon to review, the pertinent portion of which reads as follows:
"Upon a consideration of the foregoing facts this commission is of the opinion: That upon the death of Loyd Washabaugh, the claimant, all rights on behalf of said Loyd Washabaugh, the administrator of his estate, and his mother and sole heir, or either of them, ceased and terminated and that there is no further liability on behalf of the respondent or its insurance carrier for the payment of further compensation herein and that the motion for revivor and the order directing the payment of further compensation is hereby denied and overruled and the demurrer thereto sustained."
¶4 The sole question presented here is one of law as to whether the unpaid and unmatured portion of the award of October 25, 1932, survived pursuant to the provisions of chapter 29, S. L. 1933, or abated in accordance with the holdings of this court prior to the enactment of said act.
¶5 The petitioners admit that had the said Loyd Washabaugh departed this life prior to the enactment of chapter 29, S. L. 1933, the award would have abated under the holdings of this court in Lahoma Oil Co. v. Industrial Com., 71 Okla. 160, 175 P. 836; Rounds v. State Ind. Com., 157 Okla. 145, 11 P.2d 479, and Parkhill Truck Co. v. Emery, 166 Okla. 280, 27 P.2d 333.
¶6 Petitioners, however, contend that the rule announced by this court in the above cases has no application where the claimant dies subsequent to the effective date of chapter 29, S. L. 1933. Since the proceedings herein were commenced in this court and the briefs of the parties filed, we have definitely answered their contention in the case of Swatek Const. Co. v. Williams, 177 Okla. §§§, 58 P.2d 585, wherein we stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Messenger v. Messenger
... ... case were indeed to become final and the cause to ... 12 O.S.1981 § 32.1; Mid-Continent Pipe Line Co.v. Seminole County Excise Bd., 194 Okl. 40, 146 ... , 70 A.2d 767, 771 (1950); see also Washabaugh v. Bartlett Collins Glass Co., 177 Okl. 159, 57 ... ...
- Starkey v. Okla. Dep't of Corr.
-
Dean v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund
... ... I. FACTS ... ¶ 2 This case has a long history, with three previously ... , 968 P.2d at 844, citing Magnolia Pipe Line Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 1946 OK 113, ¶ 11, ... , 1958 OK 279, ¶ 8, 332 P.2d 950; Washabaugh v. Bartlett Collins Glass Co., 1936 OK 294, ¶ ... ...
-
Teel v. Public Service Co. of Oklahoma
... ... Siegfried, Inc., and George F. Collins, Jr., (operators) ... Page 394 ... 2 In this case, Teel's cause of action arose from the breach of ... Dist., 464 P.2d 748, 755 (Okla.1969); Washabaugh ... Bartlett ... Bartlett Collins Glass ... ...