posting due notice, must make reports specified in sections 67 as to injuries suffered by his employees in course of their employment inasmuch as exemption does not specifically extend to section 67 and by sections 9 and 19 employers of farm laborers, domestic servants and persons engaged in interstate or foreign commerce are exempted for the act, except as to section 67 and for further reason that duties of the board transferred from bureau of inspection require general oversight of conditions of labor. In re Burk (Ind.)....

Rescue.

(SEE FELLOW SERVANT.)

Res Judicata.

Res Judicata.-Order of board refusing to reopen compensation case was not res judicata of second application under the act, providing that any weekly payment may be reviewed by Industrial Board, there being no restriction on board's powers to review its former orders for weekly payments. Shaffer v. D'Arcy Spring Co. et al. (Mich.) Res Judicata-Decision of circuit court on common-law writ of certiorari declaring proceedings and order of board compensation claim of father for death of son was not res judicata of matters presented on father's second claim before Industrial Board. Baer's Express & Storage Co. v. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (II.)...

Retroaction.

on

Retroaction.-Where deceased entered employment of defendant six weeks before act went into effect, he was nevertheless subject to act. Drtina et al. v. Charles Tea Co. (Ill.)

Review.

597

418

512

320

14

78

48

Review. Board's action in considering other disabilities suffered by claimant in making award for disfigurement under section 8, par. (c), presents a reasonable question of law. Stubbs v. Industrial Board et al. (Ill.).. Review. Even if the time provided by statute for service on adverse party of summons and complaint in action for review of Industrial Commission award can be enlarged, special circumstances must be shown. New Dells Lumber Company v. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin et al. (Wis.) 138 Review. Finding of board that wife was living with husband at time of death will not be disturbed on the ground that evidence is conflicting. Muncie Foundry & Machine Co. v. Coffee (Ind.). Review. If there is any substantial evidence in support of award it cannot be disturbed. Haskell & Barker Car Co. v. Brown et al. (Ind.).. Review. In determining whether evidence is sufficient to sustain award, only that evidence most favorable to applicant can be considered. Haskell & Barker Car Co. v. Brown et al. (Ind.)... Review. Statute providing for petition of writ of review within thirty days must be regarded as statute of limitations. North Pacific S. S. Co. V. Industrial Acc. Commission et al. (Cal.).. Review. That award is not sustained by sufficient evidence is proper and challenges sufficiency upon ever essential fact. Haskell & Barker Car Co. v. Brown et al. (Ind.)... Review.-Under Rem. Code 1915, sections 6604-20, which declare the decision of the commission shall, in all court proceedings, be prima facie correct, and the burden put on the party attacking it, any doubt is, on appeal, to be resolved in favor of decision. Marney v. Industrial Ins. Department (Wash)

Review. Where there is substantial evidence to support findings of commission they must prevail and if, it will support, by fair inference, the findings they must be regarded as conclusive. Wausau Lumber Co. v. Industrial Commission et al. (Wis.)....

Review. Workmen's Compensation Act providing that an assignment of error that the award of the full board is contrary to law shall be sufficient to present both sufficiency of facts found and sufficiency of evidence to sustain the finding does not prevent the appealing party from presenting other errors of law nor from making separate assignments of error as to each of such propositions. Bimel Spoke & Auto Wheel Co. v. Loper (Ind.) Review.-Appellate Court can deal only with matters of law. Kenwood Bridge Co. vs. Stanley (Ind.)..

48

100

48

137

140

56

168

Review. Assignment of error that award is contrary to law, presents both sufficiency of evidence and facts. Bucyrus Co. vs. Townsend et al. (Ind.). 166 Review. By direct provision of Acts 1917, c. 63, Sec. 3, amending Workmen's Compensation Act, Sec. 61, the assignment of error that the award of the full board la contrary to law is authorized and made effective to present both the sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the award and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of facts. Zeltlow vs. Smock (Ind.)

174

Review.-Duty of board to determine extent of injury and finding will not

Kenwood

168

151

261

171

be disturbed if there is any evidence on which it can stand. Bridge Co. vs. Stanley (Ind.)..... Review. Finding of fact by commission on conflicting evidence cannot be set aside. Gray et al. vs. Industrial Commission et al. (Cal.)... Review. If there is some evidence in support of injury, finding of Industrial Commission in favor of employee must be conclusive-sixteen year old boy injured while working in basement of retail store where goods for sale by his employer were temporarily stored was entitled to no compensation, the employer's principal business being sale and not storage. Walsh vs. F. W. Woolworth Co. (N. Y.).. Review. In construing section of act it should be read in light of other parts and given a construction consistent therewith, if possible. In re Cannon (Ind.) Review. On an appeal from an award of the Industrial Commission, no presumption safeguarded it finding that injury to index finger was equivalent to loss of finger, where, there was evidence that finger was permanently stiff there was no evidence that this rendered it useless or destroyed its efficiency. Injured finger is not lost, if it can fulfill its normal and natural functions to a degree fair and worth considering, in any work to which claimant is adopted mentally and physically-award on the basis of sixty-six and two-thirds per cent of differance in earning capacity. In re Supple Supple vs. Erie R. Co. (N. Y.).. Review. Unsupported by evidence, will be set aside by courts on certiorari, as involving act in excess of jurisdiction. Elk Grove Union High School Dist. VS. Industrial Acc. Commission of State of California-In re Hoag (Cal.) 143 Review. Where both servant and employer appeared before board, the cause was heard and determined without any suggestion or objection that no answer was filed by employer, servant was not in position to take any advantage of employer's failure to answer, even under rules covering civil procedure. Zeitlow vs. Smock (Ind.).. Review. Where insurance company sets up fraud in obtaining policy and commission ruled that it could not go into legality of policy, but on subsequent cases does go into legality, and is upheld by the courts, the company cannot apply for rehearing therein and have appeal for such rehearing considered. Clemens vs. Clemens & Grell-In re Commercial Casualty Ins. Co. (N. Y.)......

Review. Where lifting of can of paint caused a blood vessel in servant's lungs to burst, there was an accidental injury within the act and it is immaterial that it had burst before but had healed over and might burst again-whether such death was an "accidental injury" within the meaning of the act is a question of law for the court. Southwestern Surety Ins. Co. vs. Owens et al. (Tex.).

259

174

240

271

331

368

Review. Evidence whether employee's disability had increased or recurred since award, so as to authorize increase of compensation is a question of fact and the board's finding thereon is conclusive on the courts. SquireDingee Co. v. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (Ill.).. Review.-Act does not prevent recourse to courts which may investigate whether commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction, and, if such be the case, may set aside the award. Griffith v. Cole Bros. et al. (Iowa). Review. The act, not specifically directing what shall be the mandate of the Appellate Court in case of reversal, the mandate should be regulated by facts of the particular case. Inland Steel Co. v. Lambert (Ind.)........ 347 Review. Determination that an accident did or did not arise out of or in course of employment, or whether it was due to wilful misconduct is a legal conclusion rather than an ultimate fact, such as is required by the act-board may include its general conclusions respecting whether injury was result of accident in its finding such findings are reviewable and upon review are binding on Appellate Court. Inland Steel Co. V. Lambert (Ind.) 347

Review. Conclusion of board that claimant's disease of spine was result of accident, being a legitimate inference from facts proved by competent evidence, its finding is conclusive on the courts. Squire-Dingee Co. v. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (Ill.)...

331

Review. Where there was evidence tending to support superior cour's finding that injury was sustained while employee engaged in sport of throwing a bobbin and bobbin pounder back and forth, it was not subject to review by Supreme Court. Leclaire v. Glengarry Mills, Inc. (R. I.). 441 Review. Under the act, authorizing board, on review of weekly payments, to "end it,' on servant's application to review former order for weekly payments, order of board providing that it should close the case was not improper on ground board had no power to decree servant should receive no further compensation if his injuries should continue. Shaffer v. D'Arcy Spring Co. et al. (Mich.).. Review. Erroneous admission of hearsay statements as to cause of accident does not require a reversal where there was other legal basis for its conclusion. Kinney v. Cadillac Motor Car Co. (Mich.). Review. Findings of fact of Industrial Board upon which their conclusion rests, supported by some evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal. Walker v. Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co. (Ind.)

Review. Where claimant has not appealed from decision of board that certain payments by deceased to claimant were not contributions to support of family, Supreme Judicial Court cannot consider such payments

418

395

362

362

324

303

in determining whether claimant was partially dependent for supportfinding that claimant father was partially dependent on son must stand if there was any evidence to warrant finding-contributions for household furniture could have been adjudged as contribution to supportpartial dependency may be found to exist, though father could have subsisted without aid from son-board not legally warranted in finding that amount of son's money in bank was "contributed" by him to his father in determining amount of weekly payment father was to receive. In re McMahon-In re Massachusetts Employees' Ins. Ass'n (Mass.).... 387 Review. Assignment challenging award of full board as contrary to law is sufficient to present the sufficiency of facts and evidence. Walker V. Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co. (Ind.). Review. Where certified copy of board's decision is filed, circuit court is without jurisdiction to review action of board. and is only authorized to enter judgment upon only showing that requirements of statute have been met-on application to set aside a default judgment facts set forth in motion and affidavit must be assumed to be true when no counter affidavits are filed. McMurray v. Peabody Coal Co. (Ill.).. Review. Where record shows that commission's finding is sustained by law and evidence adduced at hearing, award will be affirmed and writ dismissed. Globe Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Acc. Commission of State of California (Cal.) Review. Right of Supreme Court to review proceeding under Workmen's Compensation Act is limited to questions of law, and it cannot review determinations of fact, if there is evidence to support them. Brinsko's Estate vs. Lehigh Valley R. Co. of New Jersey (N. J.).. Review. Finding of facts by board on conflicting evidence is conclusive on Appellant Court. Underhill v. Central Hospital for the Insane (Ind.). 360 Review. If there is any evidence to support finding, court will not weigh it or disturb finding-evidence sufficient to support finding that loss of claimant's eye was due to foreign substance entering eye while he was working in plant of employer. Riley v. Mason Motor Co. et al. (Mich.) 406 Review. Supreme Court does not review findings of fact except to determine whether there is any evidence to support award-evidence need not be direct, but may be circumstantial. Meyers v. Michigan Cent. R. Co. (Mich.) Review. Where certified copy of an order denying award was filed with court and court, having found that commissioner had jurisdiction and erroneously decided that no compensation was due, could award the proper compensation. Griffith v. Cole Bros. et al. (Iowa)... Review. In determining whether facts found by board authorize its conclusion that intestate was engaged in interstate commerce, finding, included as one of fact, that he was engaged in interstate commerce is properly a conclusion of law and will be ignored. Walker v. Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co. (Ind.)..

Review. Where an appeal from award of board made July 5, 1917, procedure indicated by Acts 1917, c. 143, had not been followed by appellee, his objections to appellant's briefs will be overruled. Walker v. Chicago, I. &. L. Ry. Co. (Ind.).. Review. To sustain award there must be competent evidence fairly tending to show that injuries were accidental and arose out of and in course of employment. C. E. Peterson & Co. V. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (III.)

Review. Employer showed a reasonable excuse for its default, that it had a meritorious defense and had used due diligence in presenting its motion, and the denial of the motion was in abuse of discretion. McMurray v. Peabody Coal Co. (Ill.).. Review.-Employer not required to pay compensation unless accident arises out of employment. Boggess et al. v. Industrial Accident Commission et al. (Cal.)

Review. Application by Industrial Board not in writing for deposition to take evidence of deceased's widow living in Italy was irregular, filing of interrogatories by secretary of board not being written request for a commission-omission of board to make written request could not be cured by filing written request by board or some member-desposition admissible since only objections to substance of interrogatories can avail when presented for first time of trial. In re Derinza-In re Pucci-In re Contractors' Mut. Liability Ins. Co. (Mass.).. Review. On certiorari to renew award of board where record contained a stenographic report of all evidence as required by act, court' could review record including evidence. Hahnemann Hospital V. Industrial Board of Illinois (Ill.) Review. Supreme Court has no power to weigh effect of positive evidence, but it must assume that the commission believevd all evidence given which tends to sustain award-findings not subject to review except in so far as they may have been made without any evidence whatever in support. Southern Pac. Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission et al. (Cal.) Review. Where evidence as to nature and extent of injury to claimant's thumb is undisputed, finding of commission that injury should be considered as loss to entire thumb was legal conclusion subject to review by court-injury to thumb requiring amputation of distal phalanx and removal of slight chip of bone of proximal phalanx not equivalent to loss of whole thumb. Baron v. National Metal Spinning & Stamping Co. et al. (N. Y.)

431

402

368

362

362

335

324

293

795

754

740

867

749

694

642

Review. Whether accident arose out of deceased's employment is question of fact upon which arbitrator's decision will not be disturbed if supported by evidence. Chicago Packing Co. v. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (In.).. Review.-Board was not required as matter of law to find on evidence warranting finding by inference that insurance company had arranged with hospital for treatment of injured employee-finding that no arrangements were made in advance by insurance company must be accepted on appeal from decree of superior court directing insurer to pay physiclans for sums for medical service rendered. In re Ripley (Mass.).... 622 Review. Findings of board have same force as finding of court or verdict of jury, and are not to be set aside if there is any evidence on which they can rest. Sugar Valley Coal Co. v. Drake (Ind.)... Review. Held that on certiorari to review an award confirmed by Industrial Board the members of the board cannot be deemed parties so as to permit proceedings in any county where they may be found. A praecipe in due form is necessary in order to give the circuit court jurisdiction of certiorari to review a decision of the Industrial Board. Louisville & N. R. Co. vs. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (Ill. ). Review.-In a proceeding for compensation under Industrial Workmen's Compensation Act, questions as to whether the injury was caused by willful disobedience of orders will not be reviewed, where the finding recites that no such special defense was pleaded as required by Rule 10 of the Industrial Board; such rule being reasonable. Northern Indiana Gas & Electric Co. v. Pietzvak (Ind.). Review.-Industrial Board is not a defendant or party in interest, whose place of residence would determine the county where application for writ of certiorari to review an award under the act should be made. Arcade Mfg. Co. v. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (Ill.) ................................. 547 Review. Not within the province of circuit or Supreme Court to pass upon weight of evidence and only where it is contended that there is no competent evidence is the evidence adduced reviewed on question of law. Schwarm v. George Thomson & Sons Co. (Ill.).. Review.-Question of what disposition of compensation for death of employee is in proportion to respective needs of dependents is one of fact, the determination of which is committed to Industrial Commission, which is necessarily vested with large discretion and no court should interfere. Perry et al. v. Industrial Acc. Commission et al. (Cal.)........ Review. Supreme Court canot weigh testimony on error to reverse judgment of circuit court affirming award of board and can only determine as question of law whether there is any competent evidence in record tending to prove deceased's employment and that he received injury in course of employment. Baer's Express & Storage Co. vs. Industrial Board of Illinois et al. (Ill.)...

....

........

590

533

474

512

585

670

Review. The purpose of the act is to afford interested parties ample opportunities to protect their rights, including those of review and appealwhile board is not a court it is an administrative body with at least quasi judicial powers-where clerk misdirected copy of award adverse to claimant so that it was not received until time for appeal expired, and claimant within reasonable time thereafter claimed appeal, the board had the power and it was its duty to hear appeal. In re Ale et al. (Ind.) Review. Under the act court cannot review commission's determination on finding of fact, if there is evidence to sustain it-credibility of witnesses is for Industrial Commission. Benjamin V. Rosenberg Bros. et al. (N. Y.) Review. Where award was based upon employers being engaged in milling business if not true would necessitate a reversal and evidence stipulated as all the "material" evidence given upon hearing, does not establish that employers were so engaged, award will be reversed and claim sent back to commission for further hearing and finding. Vincent v. Taylor Bros. In re London Guarantee & Accident Co., Ltd. (N. Y.).. Review. When any facts are shown which in judgment of board warrant it in commuting compensation to lump sum on ground that such commutation is for the best interests of parties, its action is final and can be reviewed only for errors of law. Schwarm v. George Thomson & Sons Co. (III.) Review. Writ of certiorari does not bring to this court for review orders in compensation proceeding not in their nature appealable and does not lie to review order of judgment on pleadings. It lies to review the judgment entered pursuant to such an order. State ex rel. Chambers et al. v. District Court, Hennepin County, et al. (Minn.) . . . . . . . ...... 638 Review. Where order of Commission denying petition for rehearing was made and entered December 22nd, an application for certiorari to appellate court to review such order filed by clerk January 24th following, came too late, and writ will be denied. Neal v. Industrial Accident Commission of California (Cal.)..

.....

692

533

926

Review. Findings of fact by Board supported by evidence, cannot be disturbed on appeal. Jacobs v. Glasser & Hoffman et al. (Mich.)......1072 Review. Judge of pleas must as result of hearing, make determination of every factor that, under the statute, enters into award of compensation. D. V. G. Mfg. Co. v. Sorrentino (N. J.).... Review.-Award is conclusive upon all matters of fact properly in dispute before Commission where supported by evidence or reasonable inferences

..1099

-hearing held pursuant to claimant's application for rehearing at which the commission considered new and old issues, was equivalent to new trial so as to preclude an appeal to district court. Passini v. Industrial Commission of Colorado et al. (Col.)... Review. Assignment that award was contrary to law presents both sufficiency of findings of facts to sustain award and sufficiency of evidence to sustain findings of fact. Retmier et al. v. Cruse (Ind.)....... Review. Though inference that servant's death arose out of employment is not the only one that might be drawn, yet, being a reasonable conclusion, it must be upheld. Polar Ice & Fuel Co. et al. v. Mulray (Ind.). Review.-Board's finding that employee's injury was received in accident arising in course of employment is a legal conclusion and not a finding of fact. Retmier et al. v. Cruse (Ind.). Review. The common pleas, on appeal from board affirming referee's finding in favor of claimant should enter final judgment awarding to each dependent the amount due him and where court remands case to board for adjustment, the Supreme Court on appeal will remand record to common pleas with directions to enter final judgment. Rakie v. Jefferson & Clearfield Coal & Iron Co. (Pa.)............ Review. The act providing that a party unwilling to abide by board's findings may appeal and in such case board shall proceed no further, party not exercising his option to transfer case to court before board's final decision is bound thereby. General Accident, Fire & Life Assur. Corp., Limited (Tex.) Review. Injured employee or dependents of killed employee of employer who has elected to pay compensation directly, if wholly denied participation in state insurance fund by commission may appeal to court of common pleas of county wherein injury was inflicted. Reinholz v. Industrial Commission of Ohio (Ohio)..

927

971

965

971

.1147

.1148

.1138

989

Review. Since claim for review could be made by simple written statement, fact that claimant had no money with which to pay for formal claim was not sufficient cause for extending the time. Kalucki v. American Car & Foundry Co. (Mich.) Review. Where there is competent testimony on which to base conclusion it will not be disturbed on appeal. Holnagle v. Lansing Fuel & Gas Co. et al. (Mich.)... Review. Finding of Board that workmen's death was result of injuries received in employment supported by testimony, within rule of ultimate facts finding support in conflicting medical testimony must, in absence of fraud, be accepted by court as final. Homan v. Boardman River Electric Light & Power Co. et al. (Mich.).. ...1043

.1010

Review. Findings of fact by board unsupported by evidence are not binding on Supreme Court. Herbert v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. (Mich.)....1069

Scope of Employment.

(SEE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT.)

Settlement.

Settlement.-Under Section 57 permitting agreement between employer and injured with approval of board it was good as far as it went, and was properly approved by board, but such an agreement not providing for compensation for partial permanent liability is incomplete and board on application may hear the parties and make further provisions as the facts warrant-where board has approved agreement it still has jurisdiction of subject-matter, even if agreement was intended as a compromised settlement of all compensation, and may consider disputes before case is finally disposed of. In re Stone (Ind.).. 181 Settlements.-Under act, providing that agreement for compensation shall be filed with board and, if approved, shall be deemed final, where an injured servant was awarded $6 a week for certain period, neither party appealed and award was soon paid when servant signed receipt, which was filed with the board and never approved, though the board later refused an application by servant to review award, settlement agreement evidenced by receipt was not final and did not divest board of jurisdiction to make further orders. Shaffer v. D'Arcy Spring Co. et al. (Mich.).. 418

Settlement and Release.

Settlement and Release.-In actions to enforce compensation where validity of release or discharge of liability is involved either party may when case is called for trial, demand a trial of that issue by jury-evidence examined and held sufficient to sustain judgment setting aside release executed by plaintiff. Vogler v. Bowersock (Kan.)... Settlement and Release.-Given on payment of temporary disability is not valid unless approved by commission or unless it provides for payment of full compensation. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission of California et al. (Cal.).... Settlement and Release.-Not providing for full compensation and not approved by commission invalid; no bar to an action by employee for additional compensation. Employee's Credit Co. et al. v. Industrial Acc. Commission et al. (Cal.)

777

484

467