Ashcraft v. Hunter

• Decision Date: 02 April 1980
• Docket Number: No. CA,CA
• Citation: Ashcraft v. Hunter, 597 S.W.2d 124, 268 Ark. 946 (Ark. App. 1980)
• Parties: T. C. ASHCRAFT et al., Appellants, v. Joe HUNTER, Appellee. 79-352.
• Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals

Page 124

597 S.W.2d 124

268 Ark. 946

T. C. ASHCRAFT et al., Appellants, v. Joe HUNTER, Appellee.

No. CA 79-352.

Court of Appeals of Arkansas.

April 2, 1980 Released for Publication by the Court of Appeals April 23, 1980.

Shackleford, Shackleford & Phillips, El Dorado, for appellants.

Odell Carter, Star City, for appellee.

WRIGHT, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from a circuit court judgment affirming an award to appellee by the Workers' Compensation Commission.

The claimant sustained an admittedly compensable injury arising out of the course of employment with the respondent employer in June, 1972. The claim for benefits was accepted by respondents without the filing of a claim with the Commission. Claimant was paid compensation benefits, and was released by his doctor in December, 1972. He was hospitalized in 1973 for a condition arising out of the injury, and again the respondents accepted the claim and paid the hospital, medical and related expenses. The last check for medical services was issued September 26, 1973. The claimant was again hospitalized for a condition arising out of the injury in August, 1974. Prior to September 26, 1974, bills for medical treatment, hospitalization and medications were submitted to the Chambers Claim Service, agent for respondents that had handled all claims incident to the injury from the inception. No action was taken on the claims until after September 26, 1974, one year after the voluntary payment of the last claim.

Mr. H. R. Whatley testified on behalf of the respondent. Rockwood Insurance Company, that he was the owner of the Chambers Claim Service, and was claims service agent for the insurance carrier. He regularly issues drafts on the respondent carrier in the processing of claims. He had routinely handled all claims incident to the injury, and issued drafts for all payments that had been made. He was aware that no formal claim had been filed with the Commission. The last disability compensation was paid to claimant through June 17, 1973, and the last draft for medical services was issued September 26, 1973. There was evidence the 1974 claims were mailed to Chambers Claims Service on September 19, 1974, and Mr. Whatley testified he would normally have received them within three days, but he did not make note of the date he received them. He did not deny they were received prior to September 26, 1974. Mr. Whatley stated it was possible some one from his office may have advised the hospital the claim was covered, as this "happens all the time."

On October 31, 1974, Mr. Whatley gave the claimant notice the carrier was denying liability by invoking the one year statute of limitations, Ark.Stat.Ann. § 81-1318(b), (Repl.1976) which bars a claim for additional compensation unless it is filed with the Commission within one year from the date of last payment of compensation or two years from the date of injury, whichever is greater. The statute provides certain exceptions not here relevant.

After being notified of denial of liability, the claimant, who was not previously represented by counsel, obtained counsel and filed claim with the Commission on November 5, 1974.

The administrative law judge ruled the claim was barred by limitations on the ground the claim was not filed with the Commission within one year from the date of the last payment of compensation, and dismissed the claim.

On appeal the Commission found the claims in question were received by the Chambers Claim Service before the expiration of one year from the date of last payment by respondents, that the claims were received in the same manner as prior claims had been received and accepted without a formal filing with the Commission, and held the actions of the respondents' representative had mislead the claimant to his detriment in not filing a formal claim with the Commission. The Commission held under the circumstances respondents were not permitted to invoke the statute of limitations.

The Commission pointed out that Parrish Esso Service Center v. Adams, 237 Ark. 560, 374 S.W.2d 468 (1964) approved the following doctrine as applicable to Workers' Compensation Statutes:

These Compensation Acts are entitled to and have universally received a liberal construction from the courts. The humanitarian objects of such laws should not, in the administration thereof, be defeated by overemphasis on technicalities by putting form above...