APPEAL by Certiorari from an award of The Industrial Commission of Arizona. Award affirmed.
Mr. Leon S. Jacobs and Mr. Burt H. Clingan, for Petitioner.
Mr. Rouland W. Hill and Mr. Howard A. Twitty, for Respondent Industrial Commission.
Mr. Riney B. Salmon, for Respondents George W. Orr and Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited.
[59 Ariz. 235] ROSS, J.
In this proceeding Marjorie Phyllis King claims that she is entitled to death benefits under the workmen's compensation law, sections 56-901 to 56-977, Arizona Code 1939, for the death of her husband, Frank Frederick King, who, she alleges, was injured in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by George W. Orr, at or near Duncan, Arizona, on March 25, 1941, while he was engaged in bridge construction, and that said accident was the proximate cause of his death, at Phoenix, Arizona, on April 14, 1941.
The insurance carrier for Orr at the time was the respondent Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited.
The petitioner's claim for such benefits, it appears from the record, was filed with the Industrial Commission on May 12, 1941, and on May 21, 1941, she and her attorney, Leon, S. Jacobs, filed a petition and application for a hearing thereon.
[59 Ariz. 236] On September 18, 1941, at Phoenix,the Industrial Commission held a hearing at which the petitioner was represented by her attorney Leon S. Jacobs and the insurance carrier by its attorney Riney B. Salmon. After the parties had introduced all their evidence, the Industrial Commission took the matter under advisement until November
8, 1941, and on that day found as a fact that Frank Frederick King died April 14, 1941, and that his death "was not the result of nor aggravated by an injury alleged to have been sustained on March 25, 1941," and denied her death benefits.
Thereafter, on November 28, 1941, the petitioner filed her motion for a rehearing of her claim for benefits, which motion was denied on December 2, 1941.
Petitioner claims that the Industrial Commission erred in denying her a rehearing; that it acted without jurisdiction and in excess of jurisdiction in its findings and conclusions, for the following reasons:
"1. That respondent Commission had theretofore failed and, by its denial of rehearing, refused to require the reports of physicians to be made to said Commission in accord with the intendment of ...