Court Opinion

ID: 9723616
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:23:07.964167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:50.405705
License: Public Domain

Concurring in Result
Royse, P. J.
I cannot agree with the reasoning or *235conclusion as to Rule 26 of the Industrial Board. In my opinion, the authorities cited in this opinion not only do not sustain the conclusion, but compel the opposite conclusion. The case of Russell et al. v. Johnson et al. (1943), 220 Ind. 649, 46 N. E. 2d 219, cited in the majority opinion, quotes the exact rule before us in this case and upholds that rule as valid.
The reference to §2201, Comment 7, of Flanagan, Wiltrout and Hamilton refers to appeals in civil actions. It is to be noted that the last paragraph in said Comment provides as follows:
“An award of the full Industrial Board may be reviewed by the Appellate Court. The statute provides for a period of thirty days from the date of such award. . . . However, the Board, in the exercise of its rule-making power, has provided that a praecipe must he filed within fifteen days.”
The sole authority for the rule-making power of the Industrial Board is provided for in Ch. 120, Acts 1945, §§1-11, 60-1501—11, Burns’ 1951 Repl. In my opinion the rule announced in the Johnson case, supra, is binding on this court and it seems to me that Rule 26 merely gives effect to the legislative intent that proceedings before the Industrial Board shall be promptly and expeditiously brought to a final decision. I believe the appeal should be dismissed.
If we had authority to consider this case on its merits I would agree with the conclusion of the majority.
Note.—Reported in 123 N. E. 2d 899.