Bridges v. Fruin-Colnon Const. Co.

• Decision Date: 06 September 1932
• Docket Number: No. 21694.,21694.
• Citation: 52 S.W.2d 582
• Parties: BRIDGES v. FRUIN-COLNON CONST. CO. et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

52 S.W.2d 582

BRIDGES v. FRUIN-COLNON CONST. CO. et al.

No. 21694.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

September 6, 1932.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Claude O. Pearcy, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by John Bridges, claimant, opposed by the Fruin-Colnon Construction Company and another, employers, and the Union Indemnity Company and another, insurers. From a judgment of the circuit court affirming a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission denying compensation, claimant appeals.

Affirmed.

Armin C. Beste, of St. Louis, for appellant.

Joseph D. Leritz, of St. Louis, and Merritt U. Hayden, of Detroit, Mich., for respondents Fruin-Colnon Const. Co. and Standard Accident Ins. Co.

Leahy, Saunders & Walther, of St. Louis, for respondents National Exhibition Co. and Union Indemnity Co.

BENNICK, C.

This is an appeal by the employee from the judgment of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, affirming a final award of the Workmen's Compensation Commission.

Compensation was denied upon the ground that the claim had not been filed within the six-months' period of limitation fixed by the act (section 3337, R. S. 1929, Mo. St. Ann. § 3337); and the propriety of the commission's ruling in that respect is the only point for our review.

The commission found that the accident occurred either on the 19th or 20th of October, 1928. Claim was filed on April 27, 1929, which was six months and either seven or eight days after the accident. The employee argues, however, that the fact of a compensable injury did not become reasonably apparent until some time in November or December of 1928, and that consequently his claim was filed in time; that is, within six months after the injury as provided by the act, though not within six months after the accident.

At the time of the accident the employee was engaged in piling lumber near a steam shovel, when a heavy oak plank was caused to slide down an embankment and strike his right knee. He experienced severe pain immediately, and at the noon hour bathed his knee with liniment. When he went to his home that evening, he again treated his knee with liniment and with heat applications. Though the knee bothered him constantly, the pain extending up into the hip, the employee continued on the job for four days, when his injury became so pronounced that he was forced to be away from his work for a week. He then returned to the job and worked for six days, when he was forced to quit work for a second time on account of his injury, and never again resumed his duties for his employer. Some weeks later the knee became stiff, the evidence tending to show that the condition was due to an infectious arthritis caused by the injury the employee had received.

The law is well settled that a distinction is to be drawn between the terms "accident," "injury," and "disability" within the meaning of the act; and that the six-months' period of limitation for filing the claim will commence to run from the time it becomes reasonably discoverable and apparent that a compensable injury has been sustained. Wheeler v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 328 Mo. 888, 42 S.W.(2d) 579; Schrabauer v. Schneider Engraving Product, 224 Mo. App. 304, 25 S.W. (2d) 529; Helle v. Eyermann Contracting Co. (Mo. App.) 44 S.W.(2d) 234; Kostron v....