Court Opinion

ID: 9625690
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:47:56.676725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:13.490519
License: Public Domain

*598McINTYRE, Chief Justice
(concurring).
Although I concur in the result reached, I fail to find in the record any support for the majority’s assumption that the employee’s action was dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) (2), W.R.C.P., or for the assumption that the dismissal was without prejudice.
What the record actually reflects is that a claim was filed. It was disputed and a hearing was set at the request of the claimant. At the time set for the hearing, an attorney other than counsel for the claimant appeared and requested a continuance for the convenience of claimant’s counsel. The request was denied. The order actually entered did two things. It denied the motion for continuance; and it also adjudged and decreed that the claim of the employee “be and the same is hereby denied.”
Inasmuch as the claimant had the burden of proof and failed to offer proof at the time set for hearing, the judge was entirely justified in denying the claim. Therefore, I cannot accept as true what is indicated in the majority opinion — that the employee can file again a claim which has been acted upon and denied.