Roper v. Hammer

Citations

• 106 Kan. 374
• 187 P. 858
• 1920 Kan. LEXIS 522

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Compensation Act — Refusal of Employer to Arbitrate — Remedies Open to Employee. If an employer refuses to consent, in -writing, to arbitration, the workman is not obliged to resort to action to enforce payment of compensation. In such a case the remedy by action is permissive, and is cumulative to the remedy by arbitration.</p> <p>2. Same. If a workman has made fair effort to secure consent of his employer to arbitration, expressed in writing, and the writing is not executed, the employer may be regarded as having refused to consent.</p> <p>3. Same — Arbitration a Complete Remedy■ — Statute Liberally Interpreted. The remedy by arbitration provided by the workmen’s compensation act is distinct from the arbitration provided for by the general arbitration statute, is complete in itself, and is to be liberally interpreted and flexibly applied, to accomplish its peculiar purpose.</p> <p>4. Same — Review of Award of Arbitration — Waiver. An application to review, attacking the merits of an award, constitutes a general appearance, and waives objection on the ground of failure to give required notice.</p> <p>5. Same — Scope of Review Review of an award, so far as it relates to initiation and conduct of the arbitration proceeding, is limited in scope to those specific subjects respecting which the court is authorized to make findings.</p> <p>6. Same — Burden of Proof. An employer who has applied for review of an award must establish the facts on which the application is based, according to the rules governing proof of fraud, undue influence, and the like.</p> <p>7. Same — Extent of Injuries — Question of Fact. Whether or not fracture of the hip bone produces total permanent disability is a question of fact, which the arbitrator is authorized to determine by the Laws of 1917, chapter 226, section 3, paragraph 3, subdivision “a.”</p>