[DOWNLOAD] "Chisholm v. Vocational School Et Al." by Supreme Court of Montana * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Chisholm v. Vocational School Et Al.
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 16, 1936
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 67 KB
Description
Workmens Compensation ? Filing of Claim Without Verification ? Claim Amended by Adding Verification After Time for Filing had Expired ? Rejection of Claim Improper ? Injury Sustained Under Former Act Making Compensation Exclusive Remedy ? Voluntary Payment of Loss by Insurance Company Held not Bar to Taking Under Act. Pleadings ? Verification ? Waiver ? Amendment. 1. The verification is no part of a pleading; its absence is waived by failure to object to the defect, and, on objection, the defect may be cured by amendment of the pleading on file. Workmens Compensation ? Defect in Claim Filed Within Time ? Absence of Verification ? Claim Returned for Correction and Returned Properly Verified but After Expiration of Time for Filing ? Rejection of Claim Held Error. 2. Where the only defect in a claim for compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act, filed within the six-months period allowed by the statute, was the fact that it was not verified, and, it being returned to the claimant with the request that it be sworn to, the verified claim was not returned to the Industrial Accident Board until thirteen days after the expiration of such period, the board held not justified in rejecting the claim as not filed within time, in view of the liberal construction of the Act required by it in terms, and the fact that the strict rules of pleading and practice should not be applied to such claims. - Page 504 Same ? Facts Under Which Claimant by Taking Voluntary Payment for Injuries from Insurance Company not Barred from also Taking Under Act, Though Act Then in Force Made Compensation Exclusive. 3. Claimant for compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act was injured in 1930 while away from her place of employment, through the fault of a third person. At that time her right of action against the tort-feasor had been taken away by Chapter 121, Laws of 1925, thus rendering her right to take under the Act exclusive. An insurance company voluntarily discharged its obligation to claimant for the injuries sustained. Held, as against the contention that claimant was not entitled to recover twice for the same injury that, in view of the nature of the Act which makes no allowance for such elements of damage as pain and suffering and the compensation recoverable is but remotely connected with the damage suffered, the payment received did not bar claimant from also taking under the Act.