Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

Beury v. Aluminum Company of America, Appellant.

Appeals — Final or interlocutory — Workmen's compensation — Order reversing decision of board and remanding record.

The Workmen's Compensation Board dismissed claimant's petition for reinstatement, concluding that he had forfeited all right to compensation by failing to accept defendant-employer's request to undergo a fifth hernia operation. The court below reversed and remanded for further hearing. In direct disregard of the court, the board failed to hold a further hearing or receive additional testimony, and then reinstated its original order. The court below again reversed and remanded the record to the board for further hearing and determination. Defendant-employer appealed.

It was Held that the order of the court below was clearly interlocutory, and the appeal was quashed.

Argued December 16, 1966.

OPINION BY SPAULDING, J., June 16, 1967:

On October 22, 1964, the Workmen's Compensation Board dismissed claimant-appellee's petition for reinstatement, concluding that appellee had forfeited all right to compensation by failing to accept employer-appellant's request to undergo a fifth hernia operation within four years. On September 8, 1965, the court below reversed and remanded for further hearing.

In direct disregard of the court, the board failed to hold a further hearing or receive additional testimony, stating on January 6, 1966: "We will attempt to accommodate the Court where it is possible . . . Nor do we believe that remanding would produce any better evidence than we already have." The board then reinstated its original order.

On September 7, 1966, the court below again reversed with the order: "The record is remanded to the Board for further hearing and determination." This appeal followed.

The board's function is not "to accommodate the Court". Its refusal to follow the instructions of the lower court was capricious.

In its present state, the order of the court is clearly interlocutory.

Appeal quashed and record remanded to the board for further hearing consistent with the directive of the court below.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

BEURY v. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA
(Jun 16, 1967)