Heiselt Const. Co. v. Industrial Commission
Utah Supreme Court
Proceeding under the "Workmen’s Compensation Act by A. E. Harvey, as administrator of the estate of David Murphy, deceased, for compensation for injuries sustained by David Murphy, opposed by the Heiselt Construction Company, employer, and the iBtna Life Insurance Company, insurer. Award of Industrial Commission for claimant, and the employer and insurance carrier bring an original action to review the proceedings of the Industrial Commission.
1DissentGideon, J.
The determinative question presented by this record is concisely stated in the brief of defendant as follows:
“The controlling question being whether or not compensation due deceased on account of the permanent injury suffered, namely, the loss of certain parts of his fingers, became a vested right in his estate upon his death, when death results from other causes than injury.”
My learned Associate Mr. Justice THURMAN discusses the ease on the theory that such is the decisive question. In the prevailing opinion he says:
“The correctness of the conclusion reached by the Commission that the estate…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Rawls v. Doe ex dem. KennedySupreme Court of Alabama · 1853
- Wangler Boiler & Sheet Metal Works Co. v. Industrial CommissionIllinois Supreme Court · 1919
- Smith v. Kaw Boiler Works Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1919
- Wolf v. BauereisCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1890
- United States v. BernaysCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1908
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.