Carmona v. De Jongh, Civ. A. 41-1957.
Decision Date | 03 January 1958 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. 41-1957. |
Citation | 157 F. Supp. 540 |
Parties | Jose Santana CARMONA, Plaintiff, v. Percy DE JONGH, Commissioner of Finance, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Virgin Islands |
Almeric L. Christian, Christiansted, V. I., for the plaintiff.
Leon P. Miller, U. S. Atty., Charlotte Amalie, V. I., for the defendants.
This is a suit under the Pentheny Employees Compensation Act of St. Croix, which has been consolidated with the Kean Workmen Compensation Act of St. Thomas and St. John and incorporated in the Virgin Islands Code as chapter 11, Workmen's Compensation, of title 24, to compel payment from the Government Insurance Fund of an award of compensation which has been made to the plaintiff, an employee of Francisco Cruz Reyes. The plaintiff had been injured in the service of his employer on March 9, 1956, and he was awarded compensation totalling $186 by a compensation officer of the Department of Agriculture and Labor on February 13, 1957. The defendant Percy de Jongh, as Custodian of the Government Insurance Fund, has refused to pay the award out of the Fund and the defendants have moved to dismiss the action on the ground that under the Act the Fund is not liable to pay the award in the circumstance of this case.
The facts are that the employer, Cruz Reyes, had been covered by the Government Insurance Fund up to the end of 1955 and on or before January 15, 1956 had filed the statement required by section 29 of the Act (24 V.I.C. sec. 276) showing the number of persons employed by said employer, the kind of occupation or industry of the said persons, and the total amount of wages paid to them during the previous calendar year. However, the employer did not pay until December 19, 1956, the semi-annual premium which was due and payable under the Act on or before January 31, 1956.
Section 30 of the Act, as now embodied in section 277 of title 24 of the Virgin Islands Code, provides:
"Any employer who has been covered by the Government Insurance Fund up to the end of the preceding year shall be covered during the period January 1, to January 31, provided that every employer who has not presented the statement under oath and who has not paid the premiums within the time herein specified shall be considered an uninsured employer."
The defendant's motion to dismiss the action is based upon their contention that under the foregoing language the plaintiff's employer was uninsured by the Government Insurance Fund at the time of the plaintiff's injury since he had not paid the semi-annual premium for the first half of 1956 on or before January 31, 1956 the time specified in the Act, and that as a result the plaintiff must look solely to his employer for the payment of his compensation award and may not have recourse to the Government Insurance Fund for such payment.
The Pentheny Employees Compensation Act appears to have been modeled on the Workmen's Accident Compensation Act of Puerto Rico although in somewhat abbreviated form. It provides in section 17 (24 V.I.C. sec. 264) that every employer shall secure the payment of compensation to be awarded to his employees under the Act by insuring with the Government Insurance Fund. Failure to do so is made a criminal offense. It appears that insurance with the Fund comes into force when an employer has filed with the Commissioner of Finance for the first time the statement required by section 29 of the Act (24 V.I.C. sec. 276) showing the number of workmen employed, the occupation of the workmen and the wages paid to them, and has paid the required premium.1 Failure to file the required statement is made a crime by section 29, and section 31 (24 V.I.C. sec. 278) requires the Government to collect delinquent premiums by civil action. It is thus to be seen that the intent of the Act is to provide compulsory Government insurance for the protection of all employees covered by the Act. Being remedial in nature the Act must be given a liberal construction in favor of the employees it seeks to protect. 50 Am.Jur. Statutes, sec. 392; 58 Am.Jur. Workmen's Compensation, sec. 27; Industrial Commission of Wisconsin v. McCartin, 1947, 330 U.S. 622, 67 S.Ct. 886, 91 L.Ed. 1140; Baltimore & Philadelphia Steamboat Co. v. Norton, 1932, 284 U.S. 408, 52 S.Ct. 187, 76 L.Ed. 366.
Section 29 of the Act, as now embodied in section 276 of title 24 of the Virgin Islands Code, provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chinnery v. Government of Virgin Islands
...in favor of employees to allow recovery for injuries in order to accomplish this underlying legislative purpose. See Carmona v. de Jongh, 157 F.Supp. 540, 542 (D.V.I.1958); Torres v. Trenton Times Newspaper, 64 N.J. 458, 461, 317 A.2d 361, 362 (1974). When an employee's injury is compensabl......
-
Berkeley v. West Indies Enterprises, Inc., 72-1138.
...Accident Compensation Act of Puerto Rico, 11 L. P.R.A. § 1 et seq. 24 V.I.C. §§ 251, 263, Historical Note; Carmona v. De Jongh, D.C.1958, 3 V.I. 281, 157 F.Supp. 540; Caribbean Eng. Corp. v. Acting Com'r of Agr. & Labor, D.C.1958, 3 V.I. 339, 162 F.Supp. 193. Indeed, in the case of § 263 of......
-
Berkeley v. W. Indies Enters., Inc.
...Accident Compensation Act of Puerto Rico, 11 L.P.R.A. §§ 1 et seq. 24 V.I.C. §§ 251, 263, Historical Note; Carmona v. De Jongh, D.C. 1958, 3 V.I. 281, 157 F.Supp. 540; Caribbean Eng. Corp. v. Acting Com'r of Agr. & Labor, D.C. 1958, 3 V.I. 339, 162 F.Supp. 193. Indeed, in the case of § 263 ......
-
CARIBBEAN ENG. CORP. v. ACTING COM'R OF AGR. & LAB.
...January 31, 1957 in any event. Kean Workmen Compensation Act, sections 28, 29, 30 (now 24 V.I.C. §§ 276, 277, 278);1 Carmona v. De Jongh, D.C.V.I.1958, 157 F.Supp. 540, 543. In the Carmona case this court further held under the Pentheny Employees Compensation Act of St. Croix which in this ......