*1 lack of tbe employer be insured. Negligence employer ing 'no effect. negligence claimant tbe between itself dispute narrows
The ease such matter there is no of his injuries. extent court The order of district from the decision is áffirmed. concur. JJ., and Burke, Ch. and Nuessle' J.,
Christianson, tbe result not in all I hut reasoning concur J. Birdzell, tbe opinion. No. 6020.]
[File DAKOTA WORK NORTH ETHEN, Respondent, FRANK S. BUREAU, COMPENSATION Appellant. MEN'S (244 32.) N. W. July 28,
Opinion 1932. filed
395- Burke, Thomas J. Assistant Attorney General, appellant. *2 Weaver, Lemke & for respondent. This is from air order of District Court J. an
Nuessle, to the complaint. a demurrer overruling of Cass county plaintiff’s that on alleges 10, 1929, complaint August & Johnson the Meinecke Fargo; Company employed *3 & with the of Johnson had complied requirements Meinecke Company Act that the was and entitled Compensation plaintiff the Workmen’s to_ 10th in was act; injured of that that on August the benefits plaintiff his a and result suffered his as a employment injury the course on he total that filed disability; September his. permanent Bureau; the that the bureau allowed the claim with Compensation and to thereafter, total such disability pursuant claim for temporary to the the and his same, paid plaintiff compensation order allowing attention, medical in care, for and traveling hospital expenses charges this, that last the of the under $1,036.87; the total sum of payments 12, 1929; that the bureau has was made on December refused award denies to still refuses and the further and any and denied and which he to would be entitled as for a total additional compensation he that thereafter made formal to disability; application permanent his award reviewed and for an for total to have award per- 1931, the bureau that on entered its April 17, manent order disability; review. application plaintiff’s the demurred on the defendant that the grounds this To complaint matter of the action that no and subject court had not state facts sufficient to cause of did constitute a action. the complaint the defendant was overruled and thereupon perfected This demurrer the instant appeal'. 396al7, section act, Sup- 17 of the compensation being
Section provides: plement, hear de- to and have full and authority
“The bureau shall power thereon its decision within its and all jurisdiction, termine such action of in case the final Provided, however, shall be final. in the claimant of the to participate bureau denies right was self- injury fund on the ground workmen’s compensation course arise in the accident did inflicted, ground basis of other to the ground upon any going employment, after within claimant, days then the thirty (30) claimant’s right, his by final of such bureau may, filing notice of the action be inflicted, wherein the injury for the county the district court the state’s In such a trial in the way. proceeding, entitled to a ordinary shall represent without additional compensation, county attorney the clerk shall be notified bureau, by the workmen’s compensation of such appeal. filing forthwith shall his after filing appeal, appellant (30) days
“Within thirty defendant, form such bureau as thé ordinary against file a petition the rules cause, in said shall be had according pleadings the claim- the court shall determine civil procedure, his shall fix favor, his compensa- it ant if determines ; final act; judgment any limits prescribed tion within bureau out workmen’s compensation shall be obtained paid so maimer as awards fund the same workmen’s such are paid a reasonable fee attorney’s including such proceeding,
“The cost of shall be taxed to be fixed by trjal judge, attorney the claimant’s *4 unsuccessful party. against as in the error ordi- have the prosecute shall
“Either party cases.” civil nary 396al8, provides: 18, being
And § § has made within . been for compensation claim “If the original its may, any time, on fifteen, section time specified and, accordance award, review on application, motion or own increase, or review, end, diminish, may on such found facts with has awarded, or, if, been compensation previously cr or pensation compensation.” award discontinued, re-fused '398
The' for determination this principal question on arises under appeal these and involves sections their construction and application. this is short, as to whether a claimant, whose claim has been allowed under 17 and who thereafter makes únder application § n fora'review of the award made, thus of from the 'action of the bureau in his for review.. application
Section 1 of the act (§ 396al, Supplement), provides: “The state North Dakota, herein its and sover exercising police eign powers, declares that hereby state prosperity depends in a measure large of its there upon well-being wage workers, and, for fore, injured in hazardous their workmen families employments, sure dependents, and certain relief hereby provided regardless fault and to the exclusion of other every remedy, pro ceeding as compensation, act; otherwise in this except provided civil, to that all end actions and civil causes of action for such personal all injuries and jurisdiction the courts over state such causes are abolished, as act hereby except provided.”
“The
of the workmen’s
act is de
underlying purpose
compensation
be the
nominated to
their
protection
injured workmen,
families and
and the
of sure and certain
provision
relief;
end
dependents
over
courts
personal-' injuries sustained
em
is abolished
as
act.”
ployees
except
provided
North
Gotchy
Dakota Workmen’s
N.
(39S Tbe contributor. and aci an indirect beneficiary ested ultimate as. for the in ap diverse providing and interests these recognizes several. members of commissioners, pointment of. one' á labor, be a commissioners must
One these representative a one representative employers. and public, representative with and vested is witbrthe 'duty Bureau charged The Compensation- 396a4. amendments, and enforce the act. Supplement, to § the-power 1 in the act set forth with the declared purpose § Consistent discretion it bureau), large “To thereof, (the compensation supra. It is and summary simple:- Its is procedure, process and .awarded... evidence, nor gen law or rules common by statutory is not bound make It may technical rules procedure:' investigation erally by to ascer calculated in its best such manner own as, judgment,;may.be. -of and to out justly carry the substantial rights parties tain Bureau, Workmen’s v. North Dakota Comp. of the act.” Gotchy spirit Bureau, Workmen’s Comp. ex rel. v. North State Craig supra; Dakota and 555; 396a4, E, amend D. 649, paragraph N. 207 N. W. 53 § with .the declared is consistent Likewise, 17, supra, purpose ments. § it to effectuate it. Thus is evident and is designed act far it to to as was do shear the so courts, possible intended legislature to compen over jurisdiction questions relating of all and so, power in' course of the covered injured employments sation of employees confer this and power jurisdiction representatives act, fir act. In this interested and benefited most of those peculiarly Dushek v. N. D. 710, see State ex rel. Watland, connection, . 116 39 A.L.R. 680,W. 9 . It was first raised Crandall not new court. This is question 207 N. W. 636, Workmen’s Comp. North Dakota v. N. D. ex North Dakota Workmen’s in State rel. Craig again Case on all fours The Crandall with the Bureau, supra. consideration of the con After instant case. we.are can there do no better than to expressed firmed opinion therefrom. quote unmistakable terms
“The declared most. legislature hear shall have and determine full power authority The within its decisions thereon shall be its. extent, -who ..final,’ ., of a claimant, the.injriries supra. *6 '400 be entitled to in the
found to is obvious- participate compensation fund, within the of the ly question Bureau, Compensation —a on which the statute the decision says of the bureau ‘shall final.’ be v. North Dakota Workmen’s 49 N. Gotchy 194 N. W. 915, 663, v. State supra; Snyder Bd. Ohio Liability 114 N. E. 342, St. Industrial Commission St. 268; 108 Ohio Hogle, 140 N. 363, E. 612, supra.
“In the instant the bureau not case, did find the claim compensation to be outside its plaintiff There was no denial jurisdiction. of ‘the of the claimant to at all’ the workmen’s com- participate fund ‘on the that the pensation was ground injury or on self-inflicted, the that the accident not arise in the did course of ground employment, or other the. basis upon any of the claimant’s ground going right.’ On the contrary, found that at the time of the specifically thereto injury was prior plaintiff’s a subscriber to the employer workmen’s that compensation fund; sustained certain plaintiff injury in the course of his that employment; and said was not injury pur- In this self-inflicted. posely case, therefore, there was a finding the Workmen’s Bureau that claim in Compensation the is controversy one within its jurisdiction and that the claimant is entitled to par- in and receive from ticipate compensation fund compensation for for which he-claimed specific injury compensation. But the Work- men’s Bureau further Compensation found the injuries sustained of such were character as slight to entitle the claimant to no compen- sation $4.50 sum medical except This expense. is the finding which is said to be erroneous and which the plaintiff the work- asked men’s bureau to compensation reopen reinvestigate consider anew. The bureau denied the but in application reopen, no manner former modified its findings. undisputed fact remains that there has been no bureau that it finding by is without jurisdiction to act there has been matter; no final action of the bureau ‘the of the claimant to at all in participate the workmen’s compensa- tion fund on the ground injury self-inflicted, or on that the accident did not arise in ground the course of employment, to the basis any other 'upon ground going claimant’s right.’ other there has-been no words, denial of claimant’s right ‘to participate
.401 in n of the juris- workmen’s fund’ one more compensation upon dictional in the statute. grounds specified
“If committed it that the bureau true, contends, as plaintiff an error in its extent the- injury, determination as to the of plaintiff’s has the to correct its error (§ supra) unquestioned power filed within the time as claim in here was indisputably controversy injuries law If the 162). provided by 15, chapter (Laws n sustained were than compensation more serious it their bureau believed them to be at time of determination to take it is of the bureau such within but only duty power, will receives such action as insure that the plaintiff *7 of act. But the he entitled to receive under the provisions justly Bureau, in and Compensation is vested the Workmen’s power this rests which from the courts; the the arises power granted duty The has it. and must be by legislature upon performed remedies for- all judicial chosen to abolish the ordinary deliberately therefor and to substitute us, in cases like the one before merly existing who, to out of which compensate employees, a state insurance fund in the sustained certain injuries like have case, the plaintiff the Work- course of The legislature employment. vested make final hear with full to men’s Bureau power Compensation within its claims to of fact relating determination of that a claimant compensation it has against said jurisdiction; review obtain a from and judicial shall have the to appeal fund right fin case the final Bureau only of the decisions of Compensation to claimant- participate denies the of the action of such bureau that fund the ground in the workmen’s on at all did not that the accident on the self-inflicted, was ground injury to other ground going any in the course of upon arise employment Whether these legislative provisions right.’ the basis claimant’s The exist. us to determine. provisions unwise is not for wise or are think, too is, we their meaning is not validity questioned, Their inten- to the effect courts to duty It is give for doubt. clear law.” in the lawmakers expressed tion above Case, Crandall that the rule on this appeal It is urged Workmen’s Comp. Dakota Hanson v. North by cited, abrogated however, no ground There is, 233 N. W.900. 220, 60 this contention. that case the members of the court were unable (cid:127) to an of the agree upon interpretation statute touching issue in the instant case. With thereto the respect court (the writer of the in the opinion instant case said: dissenting)
“A-
of the members
majority
court,
are unable
however,
an
agree
upon
interpretation
396al5, 396al7 and
§§
396al8
workmen’s
which
compensation law,
will
the second question
.resolve
raised. Four members
that the act must be
agree
so
as to
interpreted
support
the instant
appeal
case
the workmen’s
from
compen
sation bureau to the district court,
that action taken
agreeing
.two
the bureau under
396al8,
denying compensation
§
the-grounds
stated in
396al7,
within
appealable
from the
thirty days
date of
notice of such final action and two
to the dis
agreeing
trict court in the instant case should be
supported
their
only because,
view, there had been no final
action
of the claim
disposing
the action in
prior to
July,
(see
order
July
1921, in
Hanson
North Dakota Workmen’s
56 N. D.
Comp. Bureau,
[File 6066.] GILBERT DAKOTA, RUDY, Respondent, OF NORTH STATE Appellant. 28.)
(244 N. W.