Opinion
No. 6258.
January 18, 1936.
APPEAL from the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, for Kootenai County. Hon. Bert A. Reed, Judge.
Action for statutory nondependent award. Judgment for claimant. Reversed.
J. Ward Arney and P.C. O'Malley, for Appellants.
The claim of the state for the $1,000 nondependent award was not made in this case until March 24, 1932.
The original notice of injury and claim for compensation, signed by the employee, was filed on November 15, 1928.
A death claim must be filed within a year after death (sec. 43-1202).
A claim is barred if not filed within the statutory period. ( Eldridge v. Idaho State Penitentiary, 54 Idaho 213, 30 P.2d 781.)
The March 24, 1932, claim filed by the state was not a claim for review (sec. 43-1406), but was an original claim (sec. 43-1202), requiring the filing of claim for death within one year from death.
Bert H. Miller, Attorney General, and J.W. Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
The award of $1,000 to the state is not in the way of compensation, and does not depend upon the filing of a death claim, but the award automatically becomes due upon proof of death without dependents. Even though the court should hold that the Workmen's Compensation Act as originally passed required the filing of a claim by the state, and proof by the state that there are no dependents, Session Laws of 1935, page 366, amending section 43-1101, I. C. A., has obviated the necessity of filing such claim and of making such proof. (1935 Ida. Sess. Laws, chap. 147, p. 364 (366); Black, Interpretation of Laws, p. 261, sec. 105, and cases cited; p. 265, sec. 106, and cases cited; Lewis' Sutherland on Statutory Construction, secs. 668, 674, 677; Commonwealth v. Howes, 270 Mass. 69, 169 N.E. 806 (807); Fray v. Roxana Pet. Corp., 132 Kan. 854, 297 P. 668; Talbot v. Industrial Ins. Com., 108 Wn. 231, 183 P. 84; Cooley, Const. Lim., pp. 773-784.)
The Workmen's Compensation Law does not require the state to file a claim to obtain payment of an award of $1,000 to the Industrial Administration Fund. (Sec. 43-1101, I. C. A.)
On October 22, 1928, Bruno Pahlke allegedly received a compensable injury while working indirectly for the Atlas Tie Company. A claim for compensation was made a day or so after the injury, he was examined by a physician and upon his advice was hospitalized in Spokane where he died on November 2, 1928, leaving no dependents. March 24, 1932, respondent, State of Idaho, filed a claim with the Industrial Accident Board for the nondependent award of $1,000 provided for in I. C. A., sec. 43-1101, subdivision 6. At a hearing of the Board, respondent was awarded $1,000 and on appeal to the district court the award was affirmed.
Appellant urged that since no claim was filed by the State within a year it cannot recover. Respondent takes the position that it never had to file a claim and even if it did that the $1,000 provided for in subdivision 6 of I. C. A., sec. 43-1101, is not a claim for compensation and therefore does not fall within the one year requirement of I. C. A., sec. 43-1202. While it is true that in a sense it is not compensation such as is paid to an injured employee or his heirs or representatives, that does not altogether answer the question because it is a question of legislative intent, and if as to the necessity of filing a claim within a year, the legislature intended this $1,000 to be classed as compensation the claim must be so filed. If respondent's contention were to be taken at its full face value the $1,000 would have to be paid to the State irrespective of whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment, because I. C. A., sec. 43-1001, classes all payments under the act as payments of compensation. ( Federal Mut. Liability Ins. Co. v. Locke, 56 Fed. (2d) 1052, at 1054.) Yet not only does no one contend for such a construction but such would clearly be contrary to the express and evident purpose of the act. There is no reason to believe that the legislature intended to place greater restrictions upon an injured employee's dependents as to the time within which they should file a claim and the proof required of them than upon the State, the necessities of the dependents obviously being greater than the need of the State for the $1,000. The year requirement for the filing of the claim has been declared a positive deadline as to dependents and this relatively short time as compared to other general statutes of limitations must have been declared in a large part at least with the idea that only within such time could adequate proof be made that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment. The claim was not filed in time, which obviates the necessity of discussing any of the other points raised by appellant.
". . . . In case there are no dependents of deceased employee, the employer shall pay into the state treasury to be deposited in the industrial administration fund the sum of $1,000."
"No proceedings under this act for compensation for any injury shall be maintained unless . . . .; or, in the case of death, then within one year after such death, whether or not a claim had been made by the employee himself for compensation. Such notice and such claim may be made by any person claiming to be entitled to compensation or by some one in his behalf. . . . ."
"If a workman receives personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of any employment covered by this act his employer or the surety shall pay compensation in the amounts and to the person or persons hereinafter specified."
As to the point that chapter 147, 1935 Session Laws, amending sec. 43-1101, supra, indefinitely extends the time, this court has laid down the rule that unless the legislature in its enactments uses expressions clearly indicative of the intent that the statute be given retrospective effect, it will not be so construed. ( McCoy v. Krengel, 52 Idaho 626, 17 P.2d 547; Lawrence v. Defenbach, 23 Idaho 78, 128 P. 81; Peavy v. McCombs, 26 Idaho 143, 140 P. 965; Bellevue State Bank v. Lilya, 35 Idaho 270, 205 P. 893; Cook v. Massey, 38 Idaho 264, 220 P. 1088, 35 A.L.R. 200; Nampa Meridian Irr. Dist. v. Barker, 38 Idaho 529, 223 P. 529.) Nothing in the 1935 statutes indicates such intention; therefore whether such amendment does extend the time or applies as a procedural amendment we do not consider.
Judgment reversed with directions to the district court to remand to the Industrial Accident Board with instructions to disallow respondent's claim. No costs allowed.
Budge and Holden, JJ., concur.
Morgan, J., concurs in the conclusion.
Ailshie, J., not participating.