Court Opinion

ID: 9728261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:03:18.895841+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:47.218018
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
concurring.
The praecipe which was filed in this case requested preparation of the “Bill of Exceptions.” The bill of exceptions was then prepared and filed pursuant to Rule 7, Revised Rules of the Supreme Court, 1967. It was prepared under the direction and supervision of the trial judge and certified by him because both parties waived a stenographic record of the proceedings.
When the bill of exceptions was filed in the office of the clerk of the district court it became the official bill of exceptions. It was, of course, subject to amendment if incomplete. That is the remedy available to a party *448who claims that material evidence has been omitted from the bill of exceptions.
The accident in this case occurred on August 20, 1967. The First Report of Accident, signed by the employer and dated June 7, 1968, stated the, probable length of total disability to be 2 weeks. The hearing before the compensation court was on July 8, 1968. The medical report which is somehow relied upon as a justification for the defendant’s delay is dated July 23, 1968. If, as the dissenting Judges say, the defendant admitted in his pleadings that the plaintiff was disabled for 2 weeks, it is difficult to see how there could be a reasonable controversy over this fact.