Opinion ID: 2632141
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Teachings of Ferguson

Text: ¶ 8 The claimant relies on Ferguson v. Ferguson Motor Company [11] for the notion that, once its order becomes final, the Workers' Compensation Court lacks cognizance to correct mere errors of law or fact unless there be a mistake in computation which is apparent from the face of the order (such as a plain miscalculation of benefits). According to claimant, there is here no comparable defect. This is so because it is not apparent from the face of the September 27 award that its acceleration-of-payment clause serves to vitiate any part of the order as a matter of law. ¶ 9 According to the teachings of Ferguson, a decision that is merely irregular or erroneous is not to be treated as void if its terms are nonetheless within the court's jurisdiction. [12] The power to adjudicate includes the power to do so wrongly, and an erroneous decision, until it is set aside or corrected in a manner authorized by law, is as binding as a correct ruling. [13] Ferguson, where miscalculations were absent from the face of the award, [14] did not address itself to any facially void part of the order. This case differs from Ferguson. Where, as here, it is apparent that the trial tribunal's action clearly was beyond its power, that portion of the decision for which there is no authority is facially void. [15]