Behanna v. Meyers
| Decision Date | 23 July 1948 |
| Docket Number | 2073 |
| Citation | 163 Pa.Super. 200,60 A.2d 608 |
| Parties | Behanna v. Meyers et al., Appellants |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Argued April 15, 1948.
Appeal, No. 149, April T., 1948, from order of County Court Allegheny Co., 1947, No. A 447, in case of Howard J. Behanna v. Raymond Meyers et al.
Appeal by employer and his carrier from award by Workmen's Compensation Board.
Appeal dismissed and judgment entered for claimant, opinion by Gunther, J. Defendants appealed.
Ernest C. Reif, with him Daniel S. Newman and Dickie, Robinson & McCamey, for appellants.
Louis Vaira, for appellee.
OPINION
FINE J.
Where an injured employe has on numerous occasions discussed his claim for workmen's compensation with his employer in an effort to secure information to enable him to file a timely report, has been continuously assured by his employer that the report would be filed, has at the request of the insurer signed a statement of the nature and cause of the accident, has complied with insurer's request for a medical examination and has submitted to ten weeks continuous medical treatment, did the board err in holding that the employer and insurer were estopped from asserting the bar of the statutory limitation? Raymond Meyers, employer, and his insurance carrier, appeal from an order of the court below affirming the conclusion of the board that they were estopped to deny the timeliness of the claim petition of Howard J. Behanna, the employe.
The claimant was injured in the course of his employment on August 21, 1942, but did not file his claim petition until May 19, 1944. The board affirmed the referee's dismissal of the petition for the reason that it had not been filed within the statutory period of one year from the date of the accident. The court below, pursuant to § 427 of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act of 1939, P. L. 520, as amended, 77 PS § 877, remitted the case to the board for further inquiry and more specific findings of facts stating, inter alia: ". . . additional testimony should be taken to disclose the circumstances of the examination of the claimant by Dr. Linn, the physician of the insurance carrier, in the early part of February, 1943, and to bring to light the conduct of the insurance carrier subsequent thereto." The employer appealed. In Behanna v. Meyers, 158 Pa.Super. 208, 44 A.2d 600, this Court held the order to be interlocutory and dismissed the appeal.
C. A. Dunn, agent of the insurer, was the only witness called at the second hearing. The referee again dismissed claimant's petition. The board, however, concluded that: "The conduct of the defendant insurance carrier is such that it is estopped from asserting that the claim petition was not filed within the statutory period." The court below concluded that "The testimony clearly shows that the claimant made every effort to have a report filed with the carrier" and dismissed the appeal of the employer. This appeal followed.
The scope of appellate review is limited to determining whether the acts and conduct of appellants are sufficient, as a matter of law, to estop them from invoking the statute of limitations as contained in § 315 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (77 PS § 602). Kline v. Kiehl, 157 Pa.Super. 392, 395, 43 A.2d 616; Howard v. McClane, 146 Pa.Super. 212, 216, 22 A.2d 225; Meyers v. Lehigh Valley Transportation Co., 138 Pa.Super. 569, 573, 10 A.2d 879. The facts are so clearly recited and the law so ably enunciated by President Judge Baldridge in Behanna v. Meyers, supra, that there is no need to add to them nor to review the authorities there cited. Considering the record now presented there is ample evidence to support the conclusion that claimant's failure to file his claim petition within the one year period was brought about by misleading conduct of appellants such as tolled the statute and now estops them from invoking its provisions.
Claimant on various occasions discussed his claim with his employer that a proper report...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dennis v. E. J. Lavino & Co.
...opinion made a final determination of the case. The Lehigh Valley case was remanded to the board for further hearing, and the appeal in the Behanna case was quashed as In the Lehigh Valley case this Court noted that 'If claimant was deceived or misled in connection with filing his claim pet......
-
United States Steel Corp. v. Iwaskewycz
... ... 222, 213 ... A.2d 159 (1965); Herringshaw v. Travelers Aid ... Society, 206 Pa.Super. 219, 212 A.2d 914 (1965); ... Behanna v. Meyers, 163 Pa.Super. 200, 60 A.2d 608 ... (1948); Demmel v. Dilworth Co., 136 Pa.Super. 37, 7 ... A.2d 50 (1939) ... The claimant ... ...
-
Dennis v. E. J. Lavino & Co.
...opinion made a final determination of the case. The Lehigh Valley case was remanded to the board for further hearing, and the appeal in the Behanna case quashed as interlocutory. In the Lehigh Valley case this Court noted that 'If claimant was deceived or misled in connection with filing hi......