Court Opinion

ID: 9699102
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:10:37.305853+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:46.486326
License: Public Domain

*691On Motion por Rehearing.
Per Curiam.
Rehearing denied, it appearing (1) that no proper party to the ease has petitioned for rehearing; (2) that the preceding opinion may not be read as holding the apportionment statute unconstitutional except as to the application sought herein; (3) that, there being in this ease neither statutory requirement of notice, nor actual notice voluntarily served on the former employer as to the hearing on compensation, the deficiencies of the apportionment statute as sought to be applied here by the last employer are such as to require the disposition above; and (4) that the need for legislative amendment is obvious.
Dethmers, C. J., and Carr, Kelly, Smith, Black, Edwards, and Kavanagh, JJ., concurred.
Souris, J., took no part in the decision of this case.