Court Opinion

ID: 9725245
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:36:42.647086+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:12.801120
License: Public Domain

*222On Petition for Rehearing.
Carson, C. J.
The court having examined the appellant’s petition for rehearing in the above entitled cause now finds:
1. That the appellant is correct in that the period for . which compensation was paid on the award terminated the 22nd of November, 1960, rather than the 28th of November, 1960. The error in date was caused by the fact that the court relied upon the date as set out in the appellant’s brief. However, this change of date has no bearing on the results in the opinion.
2. We note from an examination of the transcript at page 15, the form #14 application for review of award on account of a change of conditions filed by the appellant herein contains the following statement:
“That compensation has been paid on said award to the 22nd day of November, 1960.”
It is clear from this that the appellant admits that the compensation which was paid was for a period which terminated on the 22nd day of November, 1960.
3. The statute quoted in the original opinion is clear and unambiguous and the form 14 filed on the 2nd day of January, 1962, was more than one year after the final date for which compensation was paid. The date in which the award was fixed by the board is not the controlling date. for rehearing does not persuade this court to
4. The fact that this court did not pass on other questions as pointed out by the appellant in her petition change its original opinion. The Industrial Board determined that it did not have jurisdiction, the other questions therefore are moot.
*223Petition for rehearing denied.
Note.—Reported in 195 N. E. 2d 875. Rehearing denied 196 N. E. 2d 756.