Case Name: JACK J. MEANEY v. STATE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1924-07-08
Citations: 113 Or. 371
Docket Number: 
Parties: JACK J. MEANEY v. STATE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION.
Judges: McBride, C. J., and Bean and Brown, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 113
Pages: 371–386

Head Matter:
Submitted on motion to dismiss appeal May 28,
motion denied July 8,
argued on the merits December 17, 1924, modified January 27, costs taxed February 10, 1925.
JACK J. MEANEY v. STATE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION.
(227 Pac. 305; 232 Pac. 789.)
Appeal and Error—Respondent on Insufficiency of Abstract Should File Additional One Under Court Rule.
1. Respondent wishing to attack sufficiency of appellant’s abstract should avail himself of Supreme Court Rule No. 7, allowing him to file additional abstract instead of objecting to the form of appellant’s.
Appeal and Error—Abstract not Objectionable Because Under Same Cover With Appellant’s Brief.
2. An abstract of record is not objectionable because included under the same cover with appellant’s brief, since the practice is economical where the record is short, and brief small.
Appeal and Error—Bill of Exceptions or Transcript of Evidence Need not be Filed to Confer Jurisdiction of Appeal,
3. On appeal from a judgment at law, jurisdiction of the Supreme ' Court does not depend on filing of bill of exceptions or transcript of
evidence, though failure to file them limits the questions to be considered.
Appeal and Error — Merits not Considered on Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
4. Merits of a case will not be considered on motion to dismiss an appeal.
1. See 2 R. C. L. 155.
ON THE MERITS.
Master and Servant—Bill of Exceptions Questioning Jurisdiction of Circuit Court Unnecessary to Confer Jurisdiction on Supreme Court in Workmen’s Compensation Proceedings.
5. Question of jurisdiction of Circuit Court on appeal from Industrial Accident Commission can be raised at any stage of proceedings, and, having been raised on appeal to Supreme Court, bill of exceptions need not be filed to confer jurisdiction on latter.
Master and Servant—Letters from Industrial Accident Commission Held “Final Action” and Appealable—“Consideration.”
6. Letters to claimant’s attorney from Industrial Accident Commission, stating that claim would be submitted to Commission for its “consideration” and that Commission had “considered” matter and found no reason for reopening claim, held to constitute “final action,” from which appeals lie, within Section 6637, Or. L., as amended by Laws of 1921, page 58'3, Section 10; “consideration” being technical term indicating that tribunal has heard and judicially determined matters submitted to it.
Master and Servant—Appeal Lies from Final Action on Application for Compensation After Termination of Original Allowance.
7. Under Section 6637, Or. L., as amended by Laws of 1921, page 583, Section 10, claimant may appeal, not only from Industrial Accident Commission’s final action on original application, but from subsequent final aetion on application, under Section 6626, Or. L., subd. i, for allowance based on aggravation of injury or termination of original allowance.
Master and Servant—Industrial Accident Commission Held Precluded from Setting Up, in Opposition to Appeal, Informality of Final Action on Application for Reinstatement.
8. Industrial Accident Commission, stopping payments several times,' and reducing allowance once, without notice to claimant, and refusing latter’s application for reinstatement after last discontinuance of payment, cannot complain, in opposition to appeal, of informality of its final action, as indicated in its letter advising claimant’s attorney that it had found no reason for reopening claim.
Master and Servant—Circuit Court’s Judginent Should Substantially Follow Statute as to Reference Back to Industrial Accident Commission.
9. Circuit Court’s judgment, modifying or reversing Industrial Accident Commission’s refusal to reopen claim after termination of payments, should substantially follow Section 6637, Or. L., as amended by Laws of 1921, page 583, Section 10, by referring matter back to Commission with order to fix compensation according to schedule in act; but judgment for plaintiff, in amount eorreetly computed, with order that Commission issue necessary voucher, is erroneous only in form, and not improper as amounting to mandamus on Commission.
7. Review of finding of fact under Workmen’s Compensation Act, see notes in Ann. Cas. 1916B, 475; Ann', Cas. 1918B, 647.
Master and Servant—Industrial Accident Commission Should Traverse Facts Alleged hy Claimant on Appeal to Circuit Court.
10. Under Section 983, Or. L., Industrial Accident Commission, on claimant’s appeal from order refusing reinstatement after termination of allowance, should formally traverse facts alleged hy claimant, and thus raise clearly defined issue in Circuit Court in order that Section 6637, as amended hy Laws of 1921, page 583, Section 10, requiring trial like other civil eases, may he literally complied with in Circuit and Supreme Court.
Master and Servant—Attorney's Fees not Allowed Plaintiff in Appeals from Industrial Accident Commission.
11. In absence of statutory authority, Supreme Court cannot award attorney’s fees to plaintiff in appeals from action of state Industrial Accident Commission.
See (1) Workmen’s Compensation Acts, 126 (1926 Anno.). (2, 3, 4) Workmen’s Compensation Acts, 120 (1926 Anno.). (5) Workmen’s Compensation Acts, 125 (1926 Anno.) (6) Workmen’s Compensation Acts, 121 (1926 Anno.)
See 4 O. J. 388, 406, 602.
From Clackamas: James U. Campbell, Judge.
In Banc.
The respondent, Jack J. Meaney, moves to dismiss the appeal of the appellant,' State Industrial Accident Commission, on three grounds:
First: That appellant has neither filed nor served an abstract of record herein as required by law and the rules of this court, at any time or at all.
Second: That appellant has neither filed, prepared, nor submitted a bill óf exceptions nor a transcript of evidence prior to filing and serving brief of appellant, at any time, or at all.
Third: That defendant failed to move, demur or answer, or otherwise plead in the lower court, or take any exceptions to any rulings thereof.
Motion Denied.
For the motion, Mr. Milo C. King.
Contra: Mr. 1. E. Van Winlde, Attorney General, and Mr. James West, Assistant Attorney General.

Opinion:
COSHOW, J.
Within thirty days after giving notice of appeal the appellant filed a transcript in this court. Within twenty days thereafter, appellant filed a printed abstract and brief under one cover. The printed abstract contains only the judgment rendered in the Circuit Court so far as the record discloses. That judgment includes the verdict of the' jury. It contains some other matters, which respondent alleges are not in the record.
There is, therefore, a printed abstract of record on file in this court. If the respondent is not satisfied with the printed abstract, he should avail himself of the privilege granted under Rule 7 of this court, 100 Or. 745. It is not objectionable that the abstract of record is included under the same cover with appellant's brief. Where the record is short and the brief small, it is economical to include both documents under one cover where that can be done conveniently. The respondent is in no way injured thereby.
It is not necessary, under the rule of the court or the statute, for the appellant to have filed a bill of exceptions or transcript of evidence in advance of filing an abstract of record and his brief: Rickey v. Ford, 2 Or. 251; Pittman v. Pittman, 3 Or. 472. The bill of exceptions is not a prerequisite to the submission of the cause on appeal in this court. When no bill of exceptions is prepared, the questions to be considered by this court are limited; but the jurisdiction of the court does not depend on a bill of exceptions or the transcript of evidence in an appeal from a judgment at law: Nosler v. Coos Bay etc. Nav. Co., 40 Or. 305 (63 Pac. 1050, 64 Pac. 855).
The third cause assigned for dismissing the appeal is directed rather to the merits of the case than to a failure on the part of appellant to follow the procedure prescribed for conferring jurisdiction on this court. It has been repeatedly held in this court, that the merits of the case will not be considered on a motion to dismiss an appeal: Stacey v. McNicholas, 76 Or. 167, 173, 175 (144 Pac. 96, 148 Pac. 67); Mendenhall's Will, 43 Or. 542 (72 Pac. 318, 73 Pac. 1033).
The motion to dismiss is denied with permission to renew it when the case is presented on its merits.
Motion Denied.