West Va. Coal v. State Comp. Comm'r, (No. 8338)

CourtSupreme Court of West Virginia
Writing for the CourtMAXWELL.
Citation116 W.Va. 701
PartiesWest Virginia Coal & Coke Corporation v. State Compensation Commissioner
Docket Number(No. 8338)
Decision Date10 December 1935

116 W.Va. 701

West Virginia Coal & Coke Corporation
v.
State Compensation Commissioner

(No. 8338)

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted November 23, 1935.
Decided December 10, 1935.


[116 W.Va. 701]

1. Master and Servant

Under the provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Code 1931, 23-2-1) that members of firms and officers, including managers, shall not be included within the protection of said act, the question whether in a given instance a corporate representative is a manager must be determined upon the facts presented.

2. Master and Servant

A corporate representative who has supervision of a corporation's coal mining operations in several counties, has under his authority assistant managers, superintendents, engineers and others, and is responsible only to the board of directors, will be deemed a manager within the purview of the Workmen's Compensation Act, Code 1931, 23-2-1.

3. Master and Servant

Where there is a contract of employment between a physician and a subscriber to the Workmen's Compensation Fund whereby the physician, for stipulated remuneration, undertakes to render professional service to employees of such subscriber for a definite period, and places his services and professional ability at the call of his employer, the physician will be considered an employee within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Original mandamus proceeding by the West Virginia Coal & Coke Corporation against the State Compensation Commissioner.

Writ awarded in part as prayed.

E. A. Bowers, for relator.

Homer A. Holt, Attorney General, and Kenneth E. nines. Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

[116 W.Va. 702]

Maxwell, Judge:

By the Workmen's Compensation Act employers availing themselves thereof are required to pay premiums based on their payrolls. Code 1931, 23-2-5.

This controversy involves a difference of opinion between the officials of the relator and the compensation commissioner whether a salaried representative of the relator, whom it denominates a manager, and certain salaried physicians are employees within the purview of said statutory requirement. In its payroll reports to the commissioner, the relator has not included the salaries of these persons. The commissioner takes the position that such salaries should have been included and that because of their omission there is a shortage of $610.42 in the premiums that should have been paid for the period beginning July 1, 1933, ending January 31, 1935. The prayer of the petition is that the commissioner be required to expunge from his records the order requiring relator to pay the said sum, and that he receive relator's premium payments calculated on a basis exclusive of the salaries of the persons indicated.

The Compensation Act applies generally to persons in the service of employers as therein defined. There are certain exclusions. The pertinent one is this: "Nor shall a member of a firm of employers, or any officer of an association or of a corporation employer, including managers, or any elective official of the State, county or municipal corporation, be deemed an employee within the meaning of this chapter." Code 1931, 23-2-1. Such is the reenactment of 1925. Acts 1925, ch. 68, sec. 9. Prior thereto, the exclusion was broader. It then applied to firm members, officers, managers, superintendents, assistant managers and assistant superintendents. Code 1923, ch. 15P, sec. 9. Though the change in the statute manifested legislative intent to broaden the scope of the Act, its applicability in a given instance must be determined on the facts presented. The situation must be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • State ex rel. Tucker v. Div. Of Labor, No. 33809.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 26 d4 Junho d4 2008
    ...or skilled in some form of manual, mechanical, or industrial work"). But see West Virginia Coal & Coke Corp. v. State Comp. Comm'r, 116 W.Va. 701, 704, 182 S.E. 826, 828 (1935) (considering distinction between "employee" and "workman" in context of workers' compensation statutes and comment......
  • Deller v. Naymick, No. CC950
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 21 d4 Novembro d4 1985
    ...herself] in readiness at all times to serve [his or her] employer[.]" West Virginia Coal & Coke Corp. v. State Compensation Commissioner, 116 W.Va. 701, 704, 182 S.E. 826, 828 2. "If a doctor, who is employed by a subscriber to the Workmen's [Workers'] Compensation Fund to render medical an......
  • Wetzel v. Employers Service Corp. of Wv, No. 33337.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 8 d4 Novembro d4 2007
    ...or her] employer[.]" Syl. pt. 1, Deller, 176 W.Va. 108, 342 S.E.2d 73, (quoting West Virginia Coal & Coke Corp. v. State Comp. Comm'r, 116 W.Va. 701, 704, 182 S.E. 826, 828(1935)). Clearly, Deller's test for determining whether a professional person is an employee of an employer has no rele......
  • Crawford v. Parsons, No. 828
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 29 d2 Maio d2 1956
    ...duties and responsibilities far short of those of a manager. In West Virginia Coal & Coke Corporation v. State Compensation Commissioner, 116 W.Va. 701, 182 S.E. 826, this Court held: '1. Under the provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Code 1931, 23-2-1), that members of firms and of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • State ex rel. Tucker v. Div. Of Labor, No. 33809.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 26 d4 Junho d4 2008
    ...or skilled in some form of manual, mechanical, or industrial work"). But see West Virginia Coal & Coke Corp. v. State Comp. Comm'r, 116 W.Va. 701, 704, 182 S.E. 826, 828 (1935) (considering distinction between "employee" and "workman" in context of workers' compensation statutes and comment......
  • Deller v. Naymick, No. CC950
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 21 d4 Novembro d4 1985
    ...herself] in readiness at all times to serve [his or her] employer[.]" West Virginia Coal & Coke Corp. v. State Compensation Commissioner, 116 W.Va. 701, 704, 182 S.E. 826, 828 2. "If a doctor, who is employed by a subscriber to the Workmen's [Workers'] Compensation Fund to render medical an......
  • Wetzel v. Employers Service Corp. of Wv, No. 33337.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 8 d4 Novembro d4 2007
    ...or her] employer[.]" Syl. pt. 1, Deller, 176 W.Va. 108, 342 S.E.2d 73, (quoting West Virginia Coal & Coke Corp. v. State Comp. Comm'r, 116 W.Va. 701, 704, 182 S.E. 826, 828(1935)). Clearly, Deller's test for determining whether a professional person is an employee of an employer has no rele......
  • Crawford v. Parsons, No. 828
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 29 d2 Maio d2 1956
    ...duties and responsibilities far short of those of a manager. In West Virginia Coal & Coke Corporation v. State Compensation Commissioner, 116 W.Va. 701, 182 S.E. 826, this Court held: '1. Under the provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Code 1931, 23-2-1), that members of firms and of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT