Wisconsin

WASHINGTON

All determinations of the department may be reviewed by appeal to the Superior Court. § 20.

WEST VIRGINIA

The decisions of the Commission are final except where the right of a claimant to participate at all in the State Fund is denied on the ground that the injury was self-inflicted or that the injury did not arise in the course of the employment, or upon any other ground going to the basis of the claimant's right, in which case an appeal lies to the Supreme Court of Appeals. § 43.

WISCONSIN

Decisions of the Industrial Commission are subject to review in the Circuit Court for Dane County, in an action against the Commission for review. § 2394-19.

ARTICLE B-SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF VARIOUS STATUTES...... 921

1. Circumstances must have changed to justify review. : A few awards in compensation cases are not subject to modification. This rule would apply to indemnity for a specific number of weeks for a particular injury like the loss of a hand, an arm or a leg. But in most cases it is impossible to tell how long disability will continue and so the award is indefinite as to time. Naturally this makes the right of review necessary. Naturally also this right depends upon showing changed circumstances.

Res adjudicata

Weekly payments can be reviewed only if the circumstances have altered since the last award was made; otherwise the review would amount to a rehearing of the arbitration, which is not permissible. Crossfield & Sons v. Tanian, 82 L. T. 813; 2 W. C. C. 141.

2. Res adjudicata.

On an application to review the employer is entitled to introduce evidence as to the physical condition of the employé, even though it conflicts with the former finding as to such physical condition on the date of the finding, as the determination of the County Court judge, as to the physical condition of the workman, is not res adjudicata. Mead v. Lockhart (1909), 2 B. W. C. C. 398.

Where a workman received compensation for a while and then the amount was reduced and he subsequently applied for an increase, on the ground that although his finger which was injured was in the same condition as at the date of the last review, the fact that he had made several applications for work which had been refused on account of his condition, showed that his earning capacity was in fact reduced as a result of the accident. It was held that the last review, by which the compensation was reduced, was not res adjudicata, as against the workman, and that an order of the County Court judge, increasing the compensation, should be sustained. Radcliffe v. The Pacific Steam Navigation Co. (1910), 102 L. T. 206; 3 B. W. C. C. 185. In the last-mentioned case it was held that certain matters became res adjudicata on such a review; for example, the fact that the workman was an employé; that he was injured in the course of his employment; but that the same doctrine did not apply to the amount of compensation, because the statute made this subject to review by subsequent proceedings.

A collier lost the sight of one eye by accident and compensation was paid for two and a half years under an agree

Modifying award from date earlier than that of application to modify ment. Another agreement reducing the amount of compensation was then entered into in March, 1908. In January, 1909, the employers applied to further reduce the compensation. The workman contended that the amount of his incapacity had been settled once and for all by the agreement of March, 1908. It was held that the man was fit for his work as a miner, and the judge reduced the compensation to one penny a week. It was held on appeal that the evidence before the County Court judge was sufficient to sustain the decision, and that the workman's contention that the agreement of March, 1908, was res adjudicata could not be sustained. The Cawdor and Garnant Collieries v. Jones (1909), 3 B. W. C. C. 59.

3. New medical evidence on review to show changed circumstances.

On review of an award medical evidence on new observations and tests is admissible to show a change of circumstances. Sharman v. Holliday & Greenwood (1903), 90 L. T. 46; 6 W. C. C. 147.

4. Terms of application for review binding on applicant.

On an application by employers to review a weekly payment the court is bound by the terms of the employer's application and has no jurisdiction to find that the workman has recovered from the accident at a time previous to that suggested in the application. Upper Forest and Western Steel and Tinplate Co. v. Thomas (1909), 2 B. W. C. C. 414.

5. Modifying award from a date earlier than the date of the application to modify.

On an application to review a weekly payment the arbitrator may vary the weekly payments from the date of the application, but not from an earlier date. Donaldson Brothers v. Cowan (1909), 46 Scotch L. R. 920; 2 B. W. C. C.