(DOWNLOAD) "State Ex Rel. Magelo v. Indus. Acc. Board" by Supreme Court of Montana " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: State Ex Rel. Magelo v. Indus. Acc. Board
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 12, 1936
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 67 KB
Description
Writ of Supervisory Control ? Workmens Compensation ? Notice of Decision of Industrial Accident Board Rejecting Claim ? Notice to Attorney of Claimant Sufficient, When ? Limit of Rule of Liberal Construction of Act ? Insufficient Notice to Employer of Injury ? What Does not Amount to Actual Knowledge of Injury in Employer. Workmens Compensation ? Provisions of Code of Civil Procedure Inapplicable to Proceedings Before Industrial Accident Board. 1. The proceedings before the Industrial Accident Board in workmens compensation cases are in nowise regulated by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, which relate only to proceedings in courts, and under section 2938, Revised Codes, any informality in any proceeding before the board shall not invalidate any order or decision made by it. Same ? Supreme Court Does not Take Judicial Notice of Rules of Practice Adopted by Industrial Accident Board, if Any. 2. The supreme court does not take judicial notice of rules of practice adopted by the Industrial Accident Board. - Page 456 Same ? Notice to Claimant of Rejection of Claim ? Notice to Attorney, Though Informal, Sufficient, in Absence of Showing as to Rules of Practice Before Industrial Accident Board ? Supervisory Control Writ. 3. Held, on application for writ of supervisory control to review the action of the district court in dismissing a proceeding in mandamus to compel the Industrial Accident Board to act upon a petition for rehearing in a workmens compensation case because the petition was not filed in time, the application for the writ being based on the ground that no notice of the decision of the board rejecting the claim had ever been served on claimant, and that therefore the petition for rehearing was timely, that service of notice on claimants attorney of which claimant knew in time to enable him to act, though informal, was sufficient in the absence of a showing as to what the rules of practice of the board required in that behalf. Same ? Limit of Provision of Act Relative to Liberal Construction of Statute. 4. While the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act must be liberally construed, such construction is no justification for disregarding the plain provisions thereof relative to the time within which a petition for rehearing upon rejection of a claim by the Industrial Accident Board must be filed. Same ? What Insufficient as Notice to Employer of Injury Suffered by Claimant. 5. The requirement of the Workmens Compensation Act that a claimant for compensation must in his notice of injury received give the time and place where the accident occurred and the nature of the injury is not complied with by furnishing a doctors certificate that claimant "was sick and unable to work from January 17th to February 9th, 1930." Same ? Actual Knowledge on Part of Employer of Injury to Employee ? What Insufficient to Amount to Such Knowledge. 6. Mere knowledge on the part of an employer that an employee (claimant for compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act) became sick while at work, or that he was "hurt," or the fact, as testified by claimant, that he had informed the foreman that he had a sore back, does not, in the absence of some knowledge on the part of the employer that some accidental injury was sustained by the employee, amount to actual knowledge of the injury, within the meaning of section 2933, Revised Codes.
 "State Ex Rel. Magelo v. Indus. Acc. Board" by Supreme Court of Montana " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}