Court Opinion

ID: 9610474
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:42:00.879836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:59.833256
License: Public Domain

*551On Motion for Rehearing.
The defendants in error contend in their motion for rehearing that the evidence presented before the board demanded a finding that the claimant was a subcontractor and not an employee of the Foremost Builders Supply Co., that therefore the board was without jurisdiction when the original award was rendered, and that the only award that could be legally made was one setting-aside the original award inasmuch as there is nothing the parties can do to confer jurisdiction upon the board when it does not possess jurisdiction under the act of the legislature which created it.
The movants cite cases in support of their contentions where the “claimant” as a matter of law was not an employee (where he was held to be a public officer) or where the evidence demanded, on the hearing to determine liability, a finding that he was not an employee, and one case where the appeal from the award of the board was made to a superior court that did not have jurisdiction. (The appeal must be made to superior court of the county where the injury occurred.) Code § 114-710.
In the present case the original award, which the insurer and employer are seeking to set aside, was demanded by the agreement between the parties which stated that the “claimant” was an employee. The question of whether a claimant is an employee is generally a question of fact and not of law. The cases cited by the movants wherein it was held that the claimant was not an employee but a public officer are exceptions to the general rule and the question was one of law and not of fact. The original award in this case was supported by the evidence and the question on the second hearing was not merely whether the claimant was an employee or a subcontractor but was whether the first award was entered into by such “fraud, accident, or mistake” as would allow the first award to be set aside. Therefore, since the board had jurisdiction of the claim the motion for rehearing is without merit, and it follows that the judgment of reversal heretofore rendered was correct.