Court Opinion

ID: 9628382
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:18:20.61728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:05.063299
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur with the portion of the majority opinion of the Court affirming the decision of the Industrial Commission that Sellmer was involved in an agricultural pursuit at the time of his injury. The Commission applied the correct legal standard. There was substantial competent evidence to support the decision of the Commission.
My concurrence with the decision to affirm the Commission should not be read as a concurrence with the portion of the Court’s opinion that upholds the constitutionality of the agricultural exemption. In my view, it is inappropriate for us to address that question in this case. The Commission appropriately concluded that it was beyond the scope of its authority to decide constitutional issues regarding the worker’s compensation law. I agree. Questions of constitutionality of the worker’s compensation laws should be raised in appropriate actions in the district court or in appropriate original proceedings before this Court.
HUNTLEY, J., concurs.