Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. v. Simmons

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from a. judgment rendered on the1 15th oí September, 1922, in the Baltimore City Court, reversing an order of the State Industrial Accident Commission, under the Workmeabs Compensation Act of the State. There are, practically, but, three questions raised, on the record in the case, and they are presented— First, by the ruling of the court on the defendant’s motion to dismiss the. appeal on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to hear- it. Second, the correctness of the ruling of the court on the appellant’» prayers, the only bill of exception presented by the record; and Third, that the court below erred in submitting to the jury the form of the issue “to affirm or1 reverse the decision” of the Commission, and that a verdict in this case of simply reversing the decision of the Commission, as. appears from the record, was not a. finding- of fact, and therefore erroneous.

The order of the Commission, passed on September 3rd, 1921, wherein the claimant’s motion, to re-open his ease, was denied and overruled, we think, was. an appealable order under section 55 of the Acts of 1914 and the amendments thereto. By this section, which regulates, the taking of appeals., it is provided, that “Any employer, employee, beneficiary or person feeling aggrieved by any decision of the Commission affecting his. interests under this, act, may have the- same reviewed by a proceeding in the nature of an appeal and initiated in the circuit court of the county or in the common law courts of Baltimore City having jurisdiction over the place where the accident occurred, or over1 the person appeal ⁵⁰⁸ ing from suolr deaision, and the court shall determine whether the Commission has justly considered all the facts concerning injury, whether it has, exceeded the powers granted it by the act, whether it lias misconstrued the law and facts, applicable in the case decided. If the court shall determine that the Commission has acted within its powers and lias correctly construed the law and facts, the decision of the Commission shall be confirmed; otherwise it shall be reversed or modified. Upon the hearing of such an appeal the court shall, upon motion of either party filed with the clerk of the court according to the practice in civil cases* submit to a jury, any question of fact involved in such case.

The proceedings in every such an appeal shall be informal and summary, but full opportunity to be beard shall be had before judgment is pronounced. Ho such appeal ■■shall be entertained unless notice of appeal shall have been served personalty upon some member’ of the Commission within thirty days following the rendition of the decision appealed from. An appeal shall not be a stay. If the decision of the Commission shall be changed or modified, the practice prevailing in civil cases as to the payment of costs and the fees of medical and other witnesses shall apply.

Appeal shall lie from the judgment of the circuit court of the county or the common law courts of Baltimore City to the Court of Appeals as iu other civil cases, and such appeals shall have precedence over1 all cases except, criminal cases.” The order of September 3rd, 1921, was passed, in pursuance of the power conferred upon the State Industrial Accident Commission, to reconsider any case previously disposed of, to re-adjust the rate of compensation or to terminate the payments, should it be considered necessary. By section 42 of the ,act it is provided: “If aggravation, diminution or termination of disability takes place or be discovered after the rate of compensation shall have been established or compensation terminated in any case, the Commission may, upon application of any party in interest or upon ⁵⁰⁹ its awn motion, readjust for future application the rate of compensation in accordance with rules in this section provided, or in a proper case, terminate the payments.” And by section 53 of the: act it is further provided that the powers and jurisdiction of the Commission over each case shall he continuing and it may from, time to time make such modification or change with respect to former finding’s or orders with respect thereto, as in its opinion may be justified. In Frazier v. Leas, 127 Md. 576 , it is said, the act secures to the party appealing the right to a jury trial, and the right to have “any question of fact involved in the case, submitted to a jury. The court is empowered to confirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the Commission and it