Anderson v. Clinchfield Coal Co.
| Decision Date | 22 April 1974 |
| Citation | Anderson v. Clinchfield Coal Co., 214 Va. 674, 204 S.E.2d 257 (1974) |
| Parties | Frank ANDERSON v. CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
S. Strother Smith, III, Abingdon (Smith, Robinson & Vinyard, Abingdon, on brief), for appellant.
J. Thomas Fowlkes, Abingdon (Penn, Stuart & Eskridge, Abingdon, on brief), for appellee.
Before SNEAD, C.J., and I'ANSON, CARRICO, HARRISON, HARMAN and POFF, JJ.
The question presented on this appeal is whether the Industrial Commission erred in holding that Frank Anderson's claim against Clinchfield Coal Company (Clinchfield) for workmen's compensation benefits was barred by Code § 65.1--52 1 by reason of his failure to timely file an application for a hearing with the Commission.
The evidence shows that on October 22, 1966, Anderson obtained a diagnosis from ihis family physician, Dr. Panos G. Gregoriou, revealing that he had occupational pneumoconiosis. Clinchfield, his employer, was promptly notified of the diagnosis. After subsequent examinations by several other physicians, Anderson was advised that he did not have the occupational disease. However, because Anderson continued to suffer from chest pains, he returned to Dr. Gregoriou, on a date not shown in the record, who again advised him that he had the occupational disease and that it would be in his best interest to cease working in underground coal mining.
After Anderson's return visit to Dr. Gregoriou, a legal representative of his union advised him of the procedure to be followed in filing his claim and the time limitation thereon. Nevertheless, Anderson failed to file a claim with the Commission at that time.
On March 20, 1972, 2 Anderson first filed his claim with the Commission alleging that a diagnosis of occupational pneumoconiosis was communicated to him on September 14, 1971. This third diagnosis was also made by Dr. Gregoriou. Examinations by other physicians confirmed Dr. Gregoriou's diagnosis of September 14, 1971.
Commissioner Evans held that Anderson's claim had not been filed within one year from the date the diagnosis of the occupational disease was first communicated to him, as required by Code § 65.1--52 as it read prior to July 1, 1972, and the claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Commissioner Evans' opinion was affirmed by the full Commission.
On October 1966, when Anderson was first told by his physician that he had the occupational disease, Code § 65.1--52, 3 in pertinent part, provided that:
'The right to compensation under this chapter shall be forever barred unless a claim be filed with the Industrial...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Dan River, Inc. v. Adkins
...Coal Co., 225 Va. 357, 302 S.E.2d 44 (1983); Cook v. Clinchfield Coal Co., 215 Va. 599, 212 S.E.2d 263 (1975); Anderson v. Clinchfield Coal Co., 214 Va. 674, 204 S.E.2d 257 (1974); Blue Diamond Coal Co. v. Pannell, 203 Va. 49, 122 S.E.2d 666 (1961). Until there has been a diagnosis of occup......
-
Owens v. YORK (COUNT OF) FIRE AND RESCUE
...695, 696 (1988); Musick v. Codell Constr. Co., 4 Va.App. 471, 473, 358 S.E.2d 739, 740 (1987) (citing Anderson v. Clinchfield Coal Co., 214 Va. 674, 675, 204 S.E.2d 257, 258 (1974)). "Moreover, the burden is upon the claimant to prove compliance with the statute." Hawks, 7 Va.App. at 401, 3......
-
Island Creek Coal Co. v. Breeding
...years of the filing of his claim. The filing of a claim within the statutory period is jurisdictional, Anderson v. Clinchfield Coal Co., 214 Va. 674, 675, 204 S.E.2d 257, 258 (1974), and, therefore, failure to timely file may be raised for the first time on appeal. See Board of Supervisors ......
-
Hawks v. Henrico County School Bd.
...jurisdictional, Musick v. Codell Construction Co., 4 Va.App. 471, 473, 358 S.E.2d 739, 740 (1987) (citing Anderson v. Clinchfield Coal Co, 214 Va. 674, 675, 204 S.E.2d 257, 258 (1974)), and cannot be satisfied by mere consent or stipulation of the parties. Stuart Circle Hospital v. Alderson......
-
4.9 Limitation of Actions
...No general discovery rule. (1) See Street v. Consumers Mining Corp., 185 Va. 561, 39 S.E.2d 271 (1946); Anderson v. Clinchfield Coal Co., 214 Va. 674, 204 S.E.2d 257 (1974); Irvin v. Burton, 635 F. Supp. 366 (W.D. Va. 1986) (wrongful birth). But see Nunnally v. Artis, 254 Va. 247, 492 S.E.2......