Court Opinion

ID: 9834593
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 01:07:09.788067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:35.027175
License: Public Domain

On petition for rehearing:
Counsel for appellant complains that we have ignored his contention, set out in his original brief, that Section 4, Article 2, Chapter 23 of the Code, provides for the imposition of rates to be paid by subscribers to the Compensation Fund, and that subsection (e) of Rule 22 is in conflict with the statute. We hold that the two provisions are separable and do not conflict. One applies to the fixing of rates in the first.instance; the other is an attempt to insure the collection of the rates thus imposed.
Much is said of the discrimination and hardship involved in our ruling. That one subscriber, under circumstances bringing him within the application of the rule is required to assume liability thereunder, while as to others in the same class such circumstances do not *51develop, does not amount to discrimination, and therefore, the fact that one employer may never be required to assume and pay compensation for injuries sustained by an employee of a predecessor, does not relieve others who are required so to do, under circumstances calling for the application of the rule as to them. On the point of hardship, it need only be said that the maintenance of the fund is all important, both for the employer and the employee; and a general rule reasonably adopted to that end, and otherwise legal, will not be set aside because it would appear to work a hardship in an individual case. No statute or rule, having broad application, works exact justice in all situations.