Case Name: MILLER v. STATE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1917-06-12
Citations: 84 Or. 507
Docket Number: 
Parties: MILLER v. STATE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 84
Pages: 507–513

Head Matter:
Motion to dismiss denied September 19, 1916.
Submitted on briefs June 1,
reversed and remanded June 12, 1917.
MILLER v. STATE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION.
(159 Pac. 1150; 165 Pac. 576.)
ON MOTION TO DISMISS.
Appeal and Error — Necessity of Bond — Appeal by State Commission— “Interested.”
1. Tbe state is “interested” in an appeal by tbe Industrial Accident Commission from an order reversing its disposition of a claim for workmen’s compensation, so that no appeal bond need be filed, in view of Section 578, L. O. D., providing that the state, when a party or “interested,” shall not be required to furnish bond on appeal.
ON THE MERITS.
Master and Servant — Workmen’s Compensation Act — Expediting Appeals.
2. By Workmen’s Compensation Act (Laws 1913, e. 112), Section 32, providing that an appeal from a decision of the Industrial Accident Commission shall have precedence over all other eases, except criminal cases, the legislature did not intend that such appeal should be expedited to the extent of disarranging the orderly transaction of business in the Circuit Court, or that eases already set for trial with witnesses under subpoena should be displaced for such purpose.
Master and Servant — Workmen’s Compensation Act — Appeal to Circuit Court — Hearing De Novo.
3. Under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, providing that on hearing of an appeal to the Circuit Court, the court, in its discretion, may submit to a jury any question of fact involved, and that the proceedings shall be informal and summary, but full opportunity to be heard shall be had before judgment is pronounced, on appeal to the Circuit Court from an order of the Industrial Accident Commission, the court properly considered other evidence than that submitted to the commission on the original hearing, thus making the hearing practically a de novo trial.
[As to review of facts on appeal under Workmen’s Compensation Acts, see note in Ann. Cas. 1916B, 475.]
Master and Servant — Workmen’s Compensation Act — Judgment on Appeal from Industrial Commission.
4. On appeal to the Circuit Court from an order of the Industrial Accident Commission in proceedings by an injured servant for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the court improperly entered judgment for the servant based on conclusions of law that in deciding what amount should be awarded the court was not limited to compensation as provided by the Workmen’s Compensation Act; that the court was entitled to hear and consider only such testimony as would have been competent, relevant, and material had the ease been an action at law to reeover damages for a personal injury; that in fixing the amount to be allowed the servant, the court was not limited by any schedules of the act, nor by any provision for monthly payments, etc.; and that in making an allowance for surgical and medical services, the court was not limited to the surgieal scale established by the commission under the act.
Master and Servant — Workmen's Compensation Act — Findings of Circuit Court — Definiteness.
5. On appeal from judgment of the Circuit Court on appeal to it from an order of the Industrial Accident Commission in an injured servant’s proceeding for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, court’s findings for the servant held not sufficiently definite to enable the Supreme Court to enter final judgment; the conclusions of law and judgment below being erroneous.
From Multnomah: Robert G-. Morrow, Judge.
Proceedings by George Miller for workman’s compensation before the State Industrial Accident Commission. From a judgment reversing the order of the commission, the commission appealed. On motion to dismiss the appeal.
Motion denied.
Mr. Eugene Bland and Mr. James H. McMenamin, for the motion.
Mr. Joseph A. Benjamin, Assistant Attorney General, contra.

Opinion:
Opinion
Per Curiam.
This is an appeal by the defendant from a decision of the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon, reversing an order of the commission as to the validity of the plaintiff's claim for compensation for an injury sustained while he was employed as a carpenter working on a building in the City of Portland. The plaintiff's counsel move to dismiss the appeal because no undertaking has been filed. Section 578, L. O. L., reads:
"In all actions or proceedings in any court in this state in which the State of Oregon is a party, or interested therein, it shall not be required to advance any costs in any such action or proceeding; and that the state shall not be required to furnish any bond or undertaking upon appeal or otherwise in any such action or proceeding. ' '
The State of Oregon is interested in the orders made by its commissions, and for that reason no undertaking on appeal was necessary in this case.
The motion is denied.
Motion to Dismiss Denied.