Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Perfect Seal Rock Wool Manufacturing Co. v. Industrial Commission
Citations: 257 Wis. 133; 42 N.W.2d 449; 1950 Wisc. LEXIS 204
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court; May 2, 1950; Wisconsin; State Supreme Court
Nebraska law provides protections for the deceased and their beneficiary, and if Wisconsin law applies concurrently, it does not negate the jurisdiction of the Wisconsin Industrial Commission. The respondents argue that the Workmen’s Compensation Act is comprehensive enough to cover the situation, asserting that the deceased was an employee of a Wisconsin partnership during the employment period in which the injury occurred. They maintain that the act does not impose additional conditions regarding the duration or type of services performed, and that once an employee status is established, it remains in effect under any circumstance. Conversely, the appellants argue that the deceased's employment was not continuous since he was compensated monthly, suggesting each month represented a new employment period. This argument is deemed untenable, as the deceased was hired without a specific employment term, indicating the employer-employee relationship persisted until terminated by either party. The respondents concede that if their interpretation is correct, any employee performing services in Wisconsin, regardless of the temporary nature of the work, would qualify for Wisconsin act benefits, including those injured while temporarily working in Wisconsin. Citing Interstate Power Co. v. Industrial Comm., they illustrate that an employee from another state sent to Wisconsin for a brief period would be entitled to benefits if injured there. Furthermore, the court recognized that the employee's status as a Wisconsin employee could persist even after returning to the original state of employment. The conclusions drawn indicate that when both employer and employee are Wisconsin residents and the contract is made in Wisconsin, the Wisconsin act applies regardless of where services are performed or where injuries occur. Conversely, an employee who neither resides in Wisconsin, nor works or is injured there, is excluded from the act, even if the employer is based in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin law regarding workers' compensation has been interpreted to have extraterritorial effects primarily when contracts are made and parties are residents of Wisconsin. Since 1931, the law has not been applied to nonresidents unless they were injured in Wisconsin. Similarly, the law does not extend to those injured outside the state unless they are Wisconsin residents under a contract made in Wisconsin. The court emphasized that compensation is granted to Wisconsin employees who suffer injuries while temporarily outside the state on employer-related duties. However, it rejected the notion that a nonresident employee of a Wisconsin company, whose primary work is outside Wisconsin, could claim benefits solely due to a brief business trip to the state. The court affirmed that Wisconsin retains an interest in the welfare of its residents but cautioned against extending the act's application unreasonably, as this could lead to absurd outcomes, such as holding Wisconsin employers liable for injuries occurring in other states. The ruling reinforces that an employee must maintain a status as a Wisconsin employee to qualify for benefits under the state's compensation act. The judgment was reversed, instructing the lower court to vacate the Industrial Commission's award.