Woodard v. Department of Labor and Industries of Washington, 25919.

• Decision Date: 28 October 1936
• Docket Number: 25919.
• Citation: 188 Wash. 93,61 P.2d 1003
• Parties: WOODARD v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES OF WASHINGTON.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

61 P.2d 1003

188 Wash. 93

WOODARD v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES OF WASHINGTON.

No. 25919.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

October 28, 1936

Appeal from Superior Court, Cowlitz County; J. H. Atwell, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by L. H. Woodard. The Department of Labor and Industries of the State of Washington entered an order allowing claimant two months' compensation for temporary total disability, and the claimant appealed to the superior court, which remanded the case to the Department, with directions. From the judgment of the superior court, the Department appeals.

Reversed with instructions to superior court to dismiss the appeal.

G. W Hamilton and J. A. Kavaney, both of Olympia, for appellant.

Imus &amp Imus and Edgar P. Reid, all of Kelso, for respondent.

BEALS Justice.

Respondent L. H. Woodard, while within the protection of the Workmen's Compensation Act, suffered an injury, for which, in his opinion, he was entitled to receive compensation, and he accordingly filed a claim with the Department of Labor and Industries, asking for appropriate relief. August 28, 1933, the supervisor denied the claim 'for the reason that there is no proof of an accident in the course of employment and no proof that the hernia was sustained during the course of employment as alleged.' Mr. Woodard requested and received a rehearing Before the joint board, which, under date March 12, 1934, ordered 'that the action of the supervisor in rejecting the claim be reversed with instructions to reopen and award claimant such relief as he may be entitled to.' Mr. Woodard and his attorney were both notified by letter of the fact that the joint board had reversed the action of the supervisor in rejecting the claim and had directed that Mr. Woodard be awarded such relief as he might be entitled to receive. During the month of April, the claimant, at the instance of the department, was operated on in an attempt to cure the hernia from which he was suffering.

June 18, 1934, the supervisor of industrial insurance again closed Mr. Woodard's claim, after allowing him compensation for temporary total disability for the two months following the operation. Within thirty days from the entry of this order, claimant appealed to the superior court, reciting in his notice of appeal that the same was prosecuted from the order of the joint board 'dated the 18th day of June, 1934.' The department contended Before the superior court, and contends here, that the superior court obtained no jurisdiction, as, if claimant attempted to appeal from the order of the joint board entered March 12, 1934, the appeal was too late, and if the appeal was taken, as recited therein, from the supervisor's order of June 18, 1934, the appeal should have been to the joint board, by way of an application for a rehearing, and not to the superior court. The superior court entertained the appeal and entered judgment remanding the case to the department, directing the joint board to determine the amount of time loss, if any, due claimant from the date of his injury to the date of his operation. From this judgment the department has appealed.

Respondent has filed a memorandum of authorities and participated in the oral argument, but has filed no brief. Respondent apparently contends that on his appeal the joint board should have determined the amount of compensation to which he was entitled. In this connection, it must be remembered that the questions to be decided by the joint board are not determined by the allegations set forth in the petition for rehearing, but are fixed by the order which is sought to be reviewed. The supervisor had rejected the claim upon the ground that there was no proof that claimant had suffered an injury in the course of his employment. After the rehearing, the joint board held with claimant, and directed that the...