Title: Phillips v. Helm's Inc.

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

201 Kan. 69 (1968)
439 P.2d 119
JAMES E. PHILLIPS, Claimant-Appellee,
v.
HELM'S INC., Respondent-Appellant, and UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, Insurance Carrier-Appellant.
No. 44,987

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed April 6, 1968.
Walter Fuller, Jr., of Kansas City, argued the cause and was on the brief for Respondent-Appellants.
Eldon L. Hagan, of Kansas City, argued the cause and was on the brief for Claimant-Appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
FROMME, J.:
The respondent, Helm's Inc., and its insurance carrier, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, appeal from an award made to the claimant, James E. Phillips, in a workmen's compensation case.
The workmen's compensation examiner entered an award in favor of James E. Phillips and this award was approved by the director. The district court on appeal refused to change the award.
We will refer to the employer and its insurance carrier as the respondents and to the workman as the claimant.
The director's award was appealed to the district court. The court's decision was not journalized. The decision was handed down in the form of a letter addressed to the attorneys who appeared in the case. The court merely advised the parties as follows:
This court cannot condone such a practice. The district court *70 should set forth findings of fact or adopt the findings of the director. (Resnar v. Wilbert & Schreeb Coal Co., 132 Kan. 806, 297 Pac. 429; Fisher v. Rhoades Construction Co., 188 Kan. 792, 365 P.2d 1101.) When this is done there is a definite frame of reference from which this court may determine the claims of error. In certain cases this court has found it necessary to reverse the decision of the district court and has remanded the case with instructions to make specific findings. (Fisher v. Rhoades Construction Co., supra.)
There is no statutory requirement that a district court make findings of fact on the issues before it in workmen's compensation cases but experience indicates that findings of fact are essential in many cases if we are to determine the questions presented on appeal. In cases where the award of the director is affirmed by the district court the court may merely adopt the findings of the director by reference, without making separate detailed findings. When this is done the basis for the decision is disclosed in the record which includes the findings and the award of the director.
All parties to this appeal proceed as if the district court did adopt the findings and the award of the director when it denied the appeal of the respondents. This court will examine the questions raised here as if the district court adopted the findings and award of the director as set forth in the record on appeal.
The parties prior to a trial before the examiner stipulated as follows:
The findings of the examiner, which are the basis for the award, were approved by the director. They are as follows:
Respondents complain that there is no substantial evidence the claimant was on duty when injured February 3, 1965.
The claimant's testimony as summarized in the record reads:
The medical report of Dr. Love shows the claimant was treated on February 4, 1965, the day following the alleged accident.
There was other conflicting evidence on the issues but the district court apparently accepted the findings of the examiner and director. This court on appeal is concerned only with evidence which proves, or tends to prove, the findings made by the trial court and not with evidence which would actually support a contrary finding. (Walker v. Finney County Water Users Ass'n, 150 Kan. 254, 257, 92 P.2d 11; Carney v. Hellar, 155 Kan. 674, 678, 127 P.2d 496; Barr v. Builders, Inc., 179 Kan. 617, 619, 296 P.2d 1106.) The award is based upon substantial and satisfactory evidence which is relevant, reasonable and persuasive.
Respondents complain the application for hearing (Form E-1) refers to an injury consisting of burns to claimant's right arm and does not mention the back injury.
In Scammahorn v. Gibraltar Savings & Loan Assn., 197 Kan. 410, 416 P.2d 771, we said:
In Place v. Falcon Seabord Drilling Co., 186 Kan. 523, 350 P.2d 788, it was said:
..............
It was stipulated at the hearing before the examiner that one of the issues was "the nature and extent of claimant's disability." No limitation is indicated thereby. At the hearing the respondents had every opportunity to proceed with any defense they might have. The scope of the issues is governed by the stipulations made by the parties prior to the hearing before the examiner.
Two orthopedic surgeons who examined the claimant testified as to the injury and the extent of disability. The claimant testified his back injury was received on February 3 when his clothing caught fire and he jumped from the truck. The extent of all injuries received in this accident was within the scope of the issues outlined at the commencement of the hearing before the examiner.
The respondents deny receipt of notice of the accident as required by K.S.A. 44-520. The statute reads:
The claimant testified that he reported the accident to the acting foreman. The examiner specifically found the respondent had notice of the accident on the day it occurred.
Notice to an immediate superior has been held sufficient notice to the employer. (Cross v. Wichita Compressed Steel Co., 187 Kan. 344, 348, 356 P.2d 804; Taylor v. Missouri Pac. Rld. Co., 146 Kan. 668, 669, 73 P.2d 62.)
Although the above disposes of the claim of lack of notice it should be noted an employer claiming lack of notice has the burden of proving prejudice. (Gales v. Kiewit Sons' Co., 184 Kan. 573, 337 P.2d 669.) An award is not barred by lack of notice unless the employer has been prejudiced thereby. (Anderson v. Air-Capitol Manufacturers, 190 Kan. 106, 108, 372 P.2d 294.)
No prejudice to the employer appears in the record submitted to this court.
We have carefully examined all contentions of the respondent-appellants and find no prejudicial error.
The judgment is affirmed.