Montana labor news., 1936-10-22

and file his written claim with the
board. The section reads as follows:
in case of personal injury or death,
all claims shall be forever barred
unless presented in writing under
oath to the employer, the insurer, or
the board, as the case may be, with
in six months from the date of the
happening of the accident, either by
the claimant or some one legally
authorized to act for him in his be-
half"
The workmans compensation
board and the local district court
presided over at the time by the
late Judge W. E. Carroll, denied any
relief to Maxi for failure to file his
claim within the period fixed by the
legislature and the opinion of the
Supreme Court merely affirmed
these rulings in the face of the plain
provisions of the statute, in the
language heretofore set out The
statement in the article that Maxi
failed to file his claim because he
was, during all the time he might
have done so, delirious in the Muir
ray Hospital is not borne out by the
decision. Neither am I able to find
any justification for the statement
that the plain language of the court
and of the statute requires the in
terpretative genius of a Philadelphia
barrister, no matter how confusing
plain English may be to some politi-
cal partisans.
In the Kearns case there was a
failure of proof in establishing that
the claimants condition resulted
from an industrial accident. The In
dustrial Accident Board so held. An
appeal was taken to the local dis
trict court from this determination
and Judge Frank l.. Riley sustained
the decision of the board. A further
appeal was taken to the Supreme
Court and Justice Matthews merely
holds in his opinion that the Board
and Judge Riley were correct upon
the evidence submitted by the claim
ant. The opinion is concurred in un-
animously by the court, A mere
cursory reading of the opinion dis
closes that the court was right. The
statement in the article in question
that the decision of the court was
based upon a failure of claimants
widow to "trace the course of the
bug through the system of her de-
ceased husband" is without founda-
ton and wholly gratuitous
The decision in the Shugg case is
based upon the Kearns case, the
Maxi case, and the case of Williams
v. A. C. M. Co., 96 Mont. 204. The
claimants failure to follow the plain
provisions of the workmen's Com
pensation Act The Industrial Acct
dent Board denied relief on this
ground and upon appeal from the
decision of the Board, the local dis
trict court, Judge R. E. McEugh,
presiding, sustained the action of the
board Upon further appeal the Su-
preme Court sustained the decisions
of the Board and the lower court.
The basis of the courts decision is
found in the following language of
the opinion:
'Liberality of construction does
not permit disregard of all rules,
and the requirements of the act it.
self must be complied with in order
to secure action on the part of the
board or a decision of court de-
claring the board in error. The in
tention of the act is to make the
practice and procedure before the
board as simple as possible, but the
act requires the claimant to comply
with those simple rules of practice
and procedure, particularly as to the
time within which the various steps
may be taken, in order that such
cases may be speedily adjusted.
Liberal Construction does not per-
NIT a court to disregard the plain
provisions of the act. And if mat
ter is concluded and the claimant
fails to take the steps to secure a
review or rehearing, the order be-
comes res adjudicata. AS was said
by the Supreme Court of West Vir-
ginia; While it goes without saying
that the provisions of the Work
mems Compensation Act should be
construed in order that the
benign purposes of the act may be
fostered, it does not follow that
either the commissioner or this
court, in spirit of excessive bene-
may ignore plain and ex-
plicit mandates of the statute. There
must be an end of these matters. The
legislative intent must not be de-
vitalized. If SO, the commissioner
would be subject to the continuous
harassment of dissatisfied claim
ants"
The Supreme Court of this state
consists of five justices In deciding
cases, their votes are of equal force.
If justice is dissatisfied with an
opinion of majority of the court,
he is privileged to write a dissenting
opinion setting forth the reasons for