Court Opinion

ID: 9520184
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:32:56.714836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:42.520703
License: Public Domain

Steinle, J.
(concurring). While agreeing that the judgment must be affirmed, I am not able to concur in the view that the Industrial Commission is bound by the determination of the state vocational board that the employee, Bernard Klees, is a handicapped person entitled to the vocational-rehabilitation training, and that when proof of the state vocational board’s determination with respect to such matter was presented to the commission, there could be no challenge of it except for misrepresentation or fraud. Further, I cannot agree that when the Industrial Commission had proof before it of the vocational board’s determination, the Industrial Commission was obliged as a matter of course to direct the employer or his insurer to pay the employee’s expenses of travel and maintenance on account of training for a period of forty weeks.
In my opinion the trial court correctly held that it was the duty of the Industrial Commission to make its own determination as to whether the employee was a “handicapped person” entitled to vocational rehabilitation. It seems clear that under sec. 102.61 (4) and (3), Wis. Stats., it was the duty of the Industrial Commission also to determine the period for which the expenses of travel and costs of maintenance were to be paid.
The trial court’s analysis of the duty and right of the Industrial Commission to determine whether the employee was entitled to the vocational-rehabilitation training, is in part as follows:
“As to whether or not Klees was entitled to take a rehabilitative course in probation and parole, we agree with plaintiffs that this is a question of fact to be determined by the commission. Sec. 102.61 (4) provides: ‘The commission *514shall determine the rights and liabilities of the parties under this section in like manner and with like effect as it does other issues under compensation.’ Admittedly, the commission does not determine an employee’s rights with respect to the training itself, cost and payment therefor. That is done by the state vocational board pursuant to sec. 41.71. However, when it comes to the travel and maintenance expenses provided for in 102.61, the commission must then make the finding of entitlement supported by credible evidence as provided in 102.61 (4) (supra).
“After all, the employer is not liable for the expenses of the actual training program under 41.71- — -only travel and maintenance costs under 102.61. As to such expenses he is entitled to a proper finding by the commission based on credible evidence. The employer cannot be bound by the determination of the state board at a proceeding where no notice of which was given the employer and from which employer has no right to seek a review.
“It is the opinion of this court that the simple issue here presented is as follows :
“Is there any credible evidence in this record to support the commission’s finding that Klees was entitled to rehabilitation treatment under 41.71 and therefore entitled to travel and maintenance expenses under 102.61 ? If so, this court is bound by such finding. Gallenberg v. Industrial Comm. (1955), 269 Wis. 40, 43 [68 N. W. (2d) 550]; Giant Grip Mfg. Co. v. Industrial Comm. (1956), 271 Wis. 583, 585 [74 N. W. (2d) 182]. . . .
“As previously indicated, we feel that plaintiffs are not bound by the determination of the state vocational board that Klees was entitled to vocational-rehabilitative training, Such a finding is mere hearsay in so far as it affects the rights of the plaintiffs in this proceeding. However, we feel there is ample credible evidence in the record to support, independently of any determination by the state vocational *515board, a finding that Klees was a handicapped person within the meaning of sec. 41.71 (3) (a).”
To require an employer or his insurer to pay an employee’s expenses of travel and costs of maintenance on account of vocational training, without affording notice and a hearing to such employer to challenge the alleged handicapped status of the employee and the reasonable need for such training, and his entitlement thereto, would, in my opinion, present a serious question of deprivation of property of such employer or insurer without due process of law in violation of sec. 1, art. XIV of the United States constitution. We should not adopt a construction of sec. 102.61, Stats., which gives rise to serious doubt of its constitutionality where, as is the case here, a different construction which will avoid such doubt, is permissible under the terms of the statute. Swanke v. Oneida County (1953), 265 Wis. 92, 99, 60 N. W. (2d) 756, 62 N. W. (2d) 7.
Since the Industrial Commission made an express finding on sufficient evidence that the employee Klees “is entitled to and is receiving instructions pursuant to the provisions of the act of congress,” the question discussed by the majority as to the binding effect of the state vocational board’s determination of eligibility is not necessary to the decision of this appeal. In my opinion, therefore, we ought not to pass on the question at this time.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Broadfoot and Mr. Justice Wingert join in this concurring opinion.