Court Opinion

ID: 9567602
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:56:02.499725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:42.436280
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Justice
(dissenting) :
Respectfully I dissent. This case and the Worth en case, and the others cited in the main opinion, in my opinion, flout the purpose of workmen’s compensation. They allow an attorney’s fee to get an award from the Industrial Commission — at taxpayers’ expense, and I think another attorney’s fee of 33j4% t° sue a third party, and then another 33% or 50% for whatever is collected from the insurance company by virtue of a statute that flies in the teeth *254of the purpose and intent of the Workmen’s Compensation statute: that of paying compensation, from statutory funds, intended for compensation of the worker’s family budget.
The majority opinion blushingly should admit to the rendering of obeisance and comfort to someone other than the person for whom the statute should be, and for whom it was passed.
CALLISTER, C. J., concurs in the dissenting opinion of HENRIOD, J.