Zuver v. Industrial Commission, et al.

No. 11,702. Zuver v. Industrial Commission, et al. Decided January 10, 1927. Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Judgment of dismissal. Affirmed. 1. Workmen's Compensation — Award—Petition for Beview. Where on petition for review of award of a referee denying compensation, the referee sends the case to the commission which also denies compensation, no court action lies, in the absence of a petition to review the final award. 2. Petition for Beview. Withdrawal of attorney, and claimant's ignorance of necessity for a petition for review, do not excuse a noncompliance with the statute. Error to the District Court of the City and County of Denver, Hon. George F. DunMee, Judge. Mr. Harry C. Green, for plaintiff in error. Mr. William L. Boatright, Attorney General, Mr. Jean S. Breitenstein, Assistant, Messrs. Smith & Brock, Mr. Milton Smith, Jr., for defendants in error. En banc. [MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Denison] Mr. Justice Denison delivered the opinion of the court. The plaintiff in error brought suit to review the action of the Industrial Commission which denied him compensation. His case was dismissed and he brings error. The judgment was right. Zuver’s claim was disallowed by the referee, and, on motion for review, the referee sent the whole case to the commission which also denied compensation. No petition for review was then made to the commission. Under these facts no action lies in the district court to review the commission’s award. Carlson v. Industrial Com., 79 Colo. 124, 244 Pac. 68. See also Brady v. Industrial Com., 80 Colo. 62, 249 Pac. 6. Plaintiff in error argues that his attorney withdrew after the commission’s award, and that he did not know that the application for review was necessary, but we cannot ignore the statute. Judgment affirmed. Mr. Chiee Justice Allen not participating.