Court Opinion

ID: 9865009
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:20:22.656918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:36:48.976114
License: Public Domain

Me. Justice Bouck,
specially concurring in the conclusion.
The rejection of the claims made by plaintiff in error’s deceased husband under the Workmen’s Compensation Act became final on June 7, 1930, no petition for review having been seasonably filed in regard to the award of May 27, 1930. Thereafter any reopening of the case would necessarily be under C. L. ’21, §4484, which confers discretionary power upon the Industrial Commission to act. The commission declined to reopen the ease when petitioned by the widow on September 9, 1931, to do so. There is nothing in the record to indicate an abuse of discretion. The judgment of the district court, affirming the decision of the Industrial Commission, is therefore properly affirmed. I limit my concurrence to *59the one point thus involved. As to other matters discussed, but not involved, I express no opinion.