Court Opinion

ID: 9851060
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:06:47.099504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:48.116837
License: Public Domain

Currie, C. J.
(dissenting). I would affirm the judgment of the circuit court for the reasons stated in the well-considered memorandum opinion of the learned trial judge. In such opinion Judge Wilkie stated:
“We are convinced that a manifest injustice has been done the plaintiff Walter R. Conley in this case. Evidence upon both hearings supports his contention that he suffered a permanent disability of the back which arose out of his employment and while performing service growing out of and incidental to his employment for Petroleum Transport and Indianhead. A serious question is raised as to whether or not Petroleum Transport and its insurer Hartford Accident & Indemnity should be held accountable for Conley’s alleged permanent disability. This issue was raised by the parties at the first hearing in August, 1960. The commission’s interlocutory order of December 16, 1960, did not dispose of it. That order, as confirmed by the Circuit Court for Dane County, whose judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court, was res judicata as to the commission finding of industrial injury on January 8, 1960, and temporary total disability therefrom from January 8, 1960, to May 16, 1960, but expressly reserved jurisdiction on all other issues. The examiner and the commission were mistaken in proceeding to determine the issue of permanent disability resulting from the January 8, 1960, issue alone without proceeding to determine the permanent disability of the back, if any, sustained by Conley during his prior years of employment by Petro*87leum Transport. Counsel for Conley is correct in contending that ‘nowhere in the order’ was there any finding absolving Petroleum Transport or Hartford. He raised this point upon petition for review from the examiner’s order of April 29, 1963; but the commission did nothing about it. At one point in his remarks at the second hearing the examiner noted that ‘Now, what evidence now, in this examiner’s opinion is a matter of res adjudicata is that an accidental injury occurred on January 8, 1960, that as a result of such injury the applicant sustained temporary total disability to May 16, 1960, that as a result of such injury there was incurred certain medical expenses which the commission ordered to be paid’. We agree with the examiner in this statement. These matters were res adjudicata. But when the examiner said ‘Jurisdiction was reserved as to the disability after May 16, 1960, which includes permanent partial disability, if any, as a result of the episode or accident of January 8, I960’ he had the wrong thing in mind in thinking that this was limited to permanent partial disability, if any, as a result of the episode or accident of January 8, 1960. His statement was actually correct because when he said ‘Jurisdiction was reserved as to the disability after May 16, I960,’ this covered not only permanent partial disability, if any, resulting from the episode or incident of January 8,1960, but also any permanent partial disability remaining after May 16,1960, which was the result of the episodes in the fall of 1954 or the fall of 1957 while he was in the employ of Petroleum Transport. In fact it would have been much less satisfactory for the commission to have speculated, before the operation was performed, upon either the cause, or the extent of any such alleged permanent partial disability. Thus the reservation of the determination of such issues in the interlocutory order of December 16, 1960, was the reasonable and sensible thing to do. This is ‘brought home’ by the medical testimony at the second hearing as compared with the medical testimony at the first hearing.. There was convincing evidence that Conley had less disability of the back after Dr. Collopy performed his surgery and after the healing period convalescing therefrom than he had at the time Indixmhead took over the Petroleum Transport semi-trailer trucking business on October 12, 1959. The prejudice to Conley was not the commission finding of no permanent partial disability resulting from employment for Indianhead. This find*88ing and the denial of recovery for permanent partial disability from Indianhead and Bituminous based thereon are supported by credible evidence. The basis, and the only basis, upon which we can and must set aside the commission order under review is that the question of permanent partial disability, if any, arising out of Conley’s employment for Petroleum Transport and growing out of and incidental to such employment has not been litigated and Conley has been prejudiced thereby.”
Because the commission did not enter any order dismissing the proceedings as to Petroleum Transport and Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, Conley had the right to assume that the reservation by the commission of the issue of permanent disability was comprehensive enough to permit him to press his claim for permanent disability against Petroleum Transport and Hartford. This being so, there was no reason for him to seek court review of the commission’s original order.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Gordon joins in this dissent.