197 S.W.2d 90 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1946
Affirming.
The appellant, Charlotte Webb, was employed as a saleswoman in April, 1943, by the appellee Montgomery Ward Company, at Lexington, Kentucky. On May 1, 1943, appellant stumbled over a dress rack and bruised her left leg. She went to her home before closing time on the day of the accident, but returned to work on the following day and continued to work until some time in July, when she left appellee's employ voluntarily and accepted employment in Louisville, Kentucky. In October, 1943, she notified Mr. R.M. Barden, the appellee's manager at Lexington, that her leg was giving her trouble, and asked for the name of the company physician. It appears that she had some correspondence with Mr. Barden thereafter concerning the payment of her medical bills. In June, 1944, more than a year after the alleged injury was sustained, she filed an application for adjustment of compensation with the Workmen's Compensation Board. Considerable testimony was taken upon the question as to whether or not appellant ever accepted the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, pursuant to KRS
"Subject to appeal to the Full Board, order of Referee is approved by the Board, as follows:
"This cause coming on to be heard, and the Workmen's Compensation Board being sufficiently advised, it is hereby ordered and adjudged that the claim of Charlotte Webb against Montgomery Ward and Company, be, and the same is hereby dismissed."
On June 5, 1945, the Workmen's Compensation Board entered an order approving the opinion and award of the referee. The order stated that the opinion and award was "approved by the Chairman, John E. Shepard on June 5, 1945, and the full Board concurring." On June 25, 1945, the applicant filed a petition for review in the Fayette circuit court, and thereafter the employer filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that it was not filed within twenty days after the rendition of the final order or award of the Board. The circuit court sustained the motion and dismissed the petition for review.
On this appeal only so much of the evidence as bears upon the issue as to whether or not appellant accepted the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act has been brought to this court, but it is unnecessary to determine whether the Board's finding on this issue is supported by any relevant, competent evidence, since we have concluded that the judgment of the circuit court dismissing the petition for review for want of jurisdiction is correct. KRS
"If an application for review is made to the board within seven days from the date of the award, the full board, if the first hearing was not held before the full board, shall, as soon as practicable, review the evidence or, if deemed advisable, hear the parties at issue, their *155
representatives and witnesses, and shall make an award and file it as specified in KRS
KRS
"An award or order of the board as provided in KRS
The computation of the twenty days is made from the act of the rendition of the award and not from the day of the award, therefore the day the award was entered must be included in the twenty-day period. Verda-Harlan Coal Company v. Harlan National Bank,
Appellant concedes that she did not make a timely application for review if the award of June 5 was a full Board award, but she argues that the award was not intended by the Board to be a full Board award and that under KRS
The judgment is affirmed.