Wooldridge v. Arens et al.

• Decision Date: 04 April 1940
• Citation: Wooldridge v. Arens et al., 164 Or. 410, 98 P.2d 1 (Or. 1940)
• Parties: WOOLDRIDGE <I>v.</I> ARENS ET AL., STATE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

164 Or. 410

98 P.2d 1

WOOLDRIDGE

v. ARENS ET AL., STATE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION

Supreme Court of Oregon.

Argued January 9, 1940.

Reargued on rehearing April 4, 1940.

Affirmed January 23, 1940.

Former opinion reversed May 21, 1940.

Workmen's compensation

1. Where State Industrial Accident Commission holds that application for compensation has not been filed within period prescribed, and rejects claim for compensation, it is not necessary in order to support an appeal from such action for claimant to include in his petition for rehearing and complaint all of facts and details of his injury necessary to be considered in disposing of the case on its merits.

Workmen's compensation

2. Claimant's petition to Industrial Commission for rehearing, and complaint filed in circuit court to review action of commission in dismissing claim on ground that application had not been filed within period prescribed by law, which contained averments of filing application for compensation with commission more than three months and less than one year after injury occurred, were sufficient to give circuit court jurisdiction, although neither petition nor complaint contained all of facts and details of injury necessary to be considered in disposing of case on its merits.

Workmen's compensation

3. A jury finding that the Industrial Commission permitted claimant to file his claim for compensation before the expiration of one year from the date of his injury was binding upon the supreme court.

Workmen's compensation

4. Where inquiry is made by State Industrial Accident Commission before filing of claim as to whether claimant should be permitted to file his claim for injury more than three months and less than one year after injury occurred, if commission should hold showing to be insufficient, an appeal would present question whether there had been abuse of discretion on commission's part in refusing to accept claim.

Workmen's compensation

5. Where application for compensation was received and filed by State Industrial Accident Commission more than three months and less than one year after injury occurred, and there was nothing in record to effect that no showing was made as basis for making deferred filing of claim, supreme court would presume that legal duty of commission had been regularly performed in accepting deferred filing.

Workmen's compensation

6. Where claimant's petition to State Industrial Commission for rehearing and complaint filed in circuit court to review action of commission in dismissing claim contained averments of filing application for compensation with commission more than three months and less than one year after injury occurred, such averments were a ground for reversal urged by claimant in his appeal from order of commission dismissing claim on ground that application had not been filed within period prescribed by law, and claimant's contention that commission abused its discretion in refusing to permit him to file application could be considered as surplusage.

Workmen's compensation

7. The action of State Industrial Accident Commission in permitting claimant to file application for compensation more than three months and less than one year after injury occurred, and thereafter proceeding to hear claimant's application for rehearing after claim was dismissed, was proper exercise of its discretion and commission should not have thereafter rejected claim on ground that it had not been filed within three months after injury.

Workmen's compensation

8. A claim for compensation must be filed within time prescribed by statute.

Workmen's compensation

9. On claimant's application for rehearing of a compensation claim which the Industrial Commission denied on the ground that the claim was not filed in time, allegations of fact in the application which if true tended strongly to cause claimant to urge the commission to permit him to make a deferred filing of the claim, were proper.

Workmen's compensation

10. On appeal to circuit court to review order of State Industrial Accident Commission dismissing claim for compensation on ground that application had not been filed within time, findings of jury as to character and extent of injury were not an adjudication binding upon commission on question whether claimant's present disability was result of such injury.

Workmen's compensation

11. Evidence supported finding of jury that State Industrial Accident Commission, not merely one member thereof, permitted claimant to file his claim for compensation more than three months and less than one year after injury occurred.

ON REHEARING

Workmen's compensation

12. Employee's testimony that he discussed his claim for compensation with an unidentified person, who informed the employee that he was one of the commissioners of Industrial

Accident Commission, was "hearsay" as to identity of man to whom employee talked.

Workmen's compensation

13. The statute, which authorizes the Industrial Accident Commission in its discretion to permit filing of claim for compensation after three months' period upon a sufficient showing being made, contemplates that commission shall investigate case before acting upon application, and mere receipt of claim at office of commission and performance of mechanical acts as placing numbers and file marks upon it do not constitute exercise of "discretion" by commission.

Workmen's compensation

14. Where employee allegedly discussed claim with an unidentified person claiming to be one of the commissioners of Industrial Accident Commission, but no action was taken by commission as a body with respect to claim for compensation until such date as claim was refused because it was not received within three months from date of accident and subsequent time when such decision was reaffirmed after rehearing, commission did not exercise "discretion" conferred upon it by statute permitting claim to be filed after the three months' period upon sufficient showing being made, so as to be bound to pass upon merits of employee's claim.

Workmen's compensation

15. Where Industrial Accident Commission denied employee right to file claim for compensation on ground that the application was not received within three months from date of alleged injury, commission did not take jurisdiction of claim by granting a rehearing on question of whether it had taken jurisdiction of claim if such was question presented by application for rehearing.

Workmen's compensation

16. Where averments of complaint on appeal from order of Industrial Accident Commission refusing to permit employee to file claim for compensation on ground that claim was not filed within three months from date of injury raised issues not included in application for rehearing required to be filed with commission before appeal, in that application for rehearing was based upon an alleged abuse of discretion in refusing to permit claim to be filed, whereas the complaint proceeded on theory that commission permitted complaint to be filed, complaint was fatally defective.

KELLY, J., dissenting.

  Limitation of time for filing claim under workmen's
                compensation as jurisdictional, note, 78 A.L.R. 1294
                  See, also, 28 R.C.L. 825 (8 Perm. Supp., 6249)
                  71 C.J., Workmen's Compensation, §§ 810, 1183
                

Department 1.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lincoln County.

CARL E. WIMBERLY, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Law by E.B. Wooldridge, claimant. From a judgment of the circuit court reversing an order of L.O. Arens and others, commissioners, constituting the State Industrial Accident Commission, the commission appeals.

AFFIRMED. FORMER OPINION REVERSED ON REHEARING.

H. Lawrence Lister, Assistant Attorney General (I.H. Van Winkle, Attorney General, and Oliver Crowther and C.S. Emmons, Assistant Attorneys General, on the brief), for appellants.

Mark V. Weatherford, of Albany (G.B. McCluskey, of Toledo, on the brief), for respondent.

KELLY, J.

According to plaintiff's application for compensation, petition for rehearing and complaint, on the 25th day of June, 1937, plaintiff, being then employed by R.A. Christianson, was engaged in logging, hauling timber, bucking timber and similar work in logging operations in Lincoln county, Oregon. Plaintiff's showing is to the effect that at that time both his employer Mr. Christianson and he, plaintiff, had complied with all of the laws pertaining to, and were operating under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Plaintiff claims that, while thus engaged on said 25th day of June, 1937, a limb from a tree, which plaintiff was in the act of felling, broke loose, fell and accidently struck plaintiff on the left side of his back.

It appears from the record that on March 31, 1938, plaintiff's application for compensation was received by defendant commission, which application was given Claim No. 627,788; the number of Mr. Christianson's account with the commission was endorsed thereupon; plaintiff was thereupon directed to submit to a physical examination by an examining physician of said commission; and defendant submitted to a physical examination in obedience to said direction.

On April 5, 1938, defendant commission entered an order, which, omitting the title, claim number, date and official signature, is as follows:

"The foregoing claim coming on for consideration before the State Industrial Accident Commission of Oregon, the commission finds:

It is hereby ordered that E.B. Wooldridge be and is hereby denied the benefits of the Workmen's Compensation Act, for the reason that the commission is refusing to accept claim for injury of June 25, 1937, on account of same not having been received within three months from the date of the accident."

On May 28, 1938, plaintiff filed with defendant commission an application and petition for rehearing of his claim and application for compensation.

Thereafter, a rehearing was granted by said commission; and on June 16, 1938, a...