[DOWNLOAD] "Rom v. Republic Coal Co." by Supreme Court of Montana # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Rom v. Republic Coal Co.
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 04, 1933
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 58 KB
Description
Master and Servant ? Workmens Compensation ? Appeal ? Additional Testimony Admissible ? Function of Court on Appeal ? Compensation During "Healing Period" ? When not Allowable ? Loss of Foot ? Compensation not Limited by Ability to Return to Work. Workmens Compensation ? Appeal ? Introduction of Additional Testimony Permissible for Good Cause Shown. 1. On appeal by a claimant, under the Workmens Compensation Act, from a decision of the Industrial Accident Board, the district court may on good cause shown, permit the introduction of additional oral testimony. Same ? Finding of Industrial Accident Board That "Disability of Claimant, if Any," Small, in Effect Finding of No Injury. 2. Where a claimant for compensation had been allowed compensation for the loss of a foot but claimed further compensation for an injury to his back or spine sustained in the same accident, the finding of the board that such "disability, if any," was small and would soon disappear, was in effect one that no injury to the spine was sustained. Same ? Act Makes Industrial Accident Board Trier of Facts ? When Only Review by Courts Permissible ? Exception. 3. The Workmens Compensation Act makes the Industrial Accident Board the trier of facts and permits a review only of its acts by the courts, except where for good cause shown evidence is permitted in addition to the record before the board. Same ? When Findings of Board not to be Disturbed by Court on Appeal. 4. Where an appeal is taken to the district court by a claimant under the Workmens Compensation Act, the case comes before the court with the presumption that the board decided correctly, - Page 251 and on the record made before the board the court should not reverse its findings unless the evidence clearly preponderates against them, the board having been in a better position than the court to determine the credibility of the witnesses before it and the weight to be given to their testimony. Same ? When Under Statute Compensation During Healing Period not Allowable. 5. Under section 2920, Revised Codes 1921, as amended by Chapter 177, Laws of 1929, the compensation allowed an injured workman for the loss of a foot is "in lieu of any other compensation provided by this Act," and therefore additional compensation during the "healing period" may not be allowed. Same ? Claimant Entitled to Compensation for Loss of Foot Without Regard to Ability to Return to Work, for Period Prescribed. 6. Under the above section, an employee who loses a foot at the ankle is entitled to compensation for the period prescribed, without regard to his ability to return to work within that period.