Christensen v. West

• Decision Date: 14 February 1968
• Docket Number: No. 10004,10004
• Citation: 437 P.2d 359,92 Idaho 87
• Parties: Wallace L. CHRISTENSEN, Claimant-Appellant, v. William H. WEST, dba Residential Improvement Company and State Insurance Fund, Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 359

437 P.2d 359

92 Idaho 87

Wallace L. CHRISTENSEN, Claimant-Appellant, v. William H. WEST, dba Residential Improvement Company and State Insurance Fund, Defendants-Respondents.

No. 10004.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Feb. 14, 1968.

McClenahan & Greenfield, Boise, for claimant-appellant.

Coughlan & Imhoff, Boise, for defendants-respondents.

McQUADE, Justice.

The only question presented by this appeal is whether I.C. § 72-316(4), which provides:

'In all cases of hernia (from industrial accident) * * *, it must be proved (to sustain a claim for workmen's compensation):

'4. That the hernia was reported to the employer within thirty days after the accident,'

is qualified by the following provision of I.C. § 72-405:

'Want of notice or delay in giving notice shall not be a bar to proceedings under this act if it be shown that * * * the employer has not been prejudiced by such delay or want of notice,'

so that the Industrial Accident Board must receive evidence offered on behalf of an employee that his employer was not prejudiced by his failure to notify the employer of an alleged hernia until thirty-two days after the injury.

The Industrial Accident Board dismissed appellant's claim for workmen's compensation in the present proceeding after refusing to hear evidence offered by appellant. The Board's order of dismissal must be reversed.

Appellant Wallace L. Christensen allegedly suffered a rupture (hernia) in his lower abdomen from an industrial accident on October 17, 1966. November 18, 1966, thirty-two days after the alleged hernia, appellant gave notice of the injury to his employer, respondent William West, d/b/a Residential Improvement Company, and to its surety, respondent State Insurance Fund. Accompanying this notice was a claim for workmen's compensation. Respondents' answer contended I.C. § 72-316(4) barred appellant's claim.

The Board limited its hearing to argument on this affirmative defense. Conceding the two-day late notice, appellant did not suggest either respondent had been earlier informed of the hernia. Instead, appellant relied solely upon the clause concerning non-prejudice to employer contained in I.C. § 72-405, which appellant contended modifies I.C. § 72-316(4). He asked the Board if it would

'hear testimony with respect to the provisions of 72-405 and in particular testimony demonstrating that the employer had not been prejudiced by the two-day delay?'

The Board refused.

Appellant then made a formal offer of proof that respondents had not been prejudiced by the late notice. The Board rejected the offer and, having found his notice defective since given too late, dismissed with prejudice appellant's claim and petition. This is an appeal from that order of dismissal.

As a fundamental rule of statutory construction, 'Statutes in pari materia (pertaining to the same subject), although in apparent conflict, are so far as reasonably possible construed to be in harmony with each other.' ¹ This rule is operable in construction of workmen's compensation statutes, ² and it applies as well to statutes enacted at different times, and to amendments, as it applies to contemporaneously enacted statutes. ³

For the reasons stated hereafter, we believe recognition of this fundamental rule of statutory construction demands that this Court answer in the affirmative the question presented.

In its entirety, I.C. § 72-405 provides:

'Sufficiency of notice.-A notice given under the provisions of section 72-402 shall not be held invalid or insufficient by reason of any inaccuracy in stating the time, place, nature or cause of the injury, or otherwise, unless it is shown that the employer was in fact misled to his injury thereby. Want of notice or delay in giving notice shall not be a bar to proceedings under this act if it be shown that the employer, his agent or representative, had knowledge of the accident, or that the employer has not been prejudiced by such delay or want of notice.'

This statute has contained virtually identical language since 1917 when it was first enacted. ⁴ I.C. § 72-316(4) was added by amendment in 1927; ⁵ the amendment contains no reference to I.C. § 72-405.

I.C. § 72-405 contains two sentences. Its first sentence concerns 'A notice given under the provisions of section 72-402,' but its second sentence speaks of 'Want of notice or delay in giving notice' as 'a bar to proceedings under this act.' (Emphasis ours). 'This act' refers to the Idaho Workmen's Compensation Law (and related laws) which includes I.C. § 72-316. ⁶

It is evident that the second sentence of I.C. § 72-405, since it applies to all 'proceedings under this act,' must qualify the 'report' requirement of I.C. § 72-316, if that 'report' requirement is essentially similar to the various 'notice' requirements scattered throughout the Workmen's Compensation Law. ⁷ Respondent, however, grasps at the semantic difference between 'report' and 'notice,' a difference which, as we presently will see, is without meaningful distinction.

In Smith v. Mercy Hospital, ⁸ this Court said concerning the 'report' requirement of I.C. § 72-316(4):

'the salutary purpose of the provision * * * providing for notice to the employer is that the employer be timely advised of the employee's condition, its cause and the time thereof * * *.' ⁹

Though the question before the court there was different from that here, we think the statement quoted a fair presentation of the policy underpinning I.C. § 72-316(4). ¹⁰

In Long v. Brown, ¹¹ this Court discussed the 'notice' requirement of I.C. § 72-402 as follows:

'The requirement that notice of an accident be given is to give the employer * * * timely opportunity to make an investigation of the accident and surrounding circumstances * * *.' ^{12, 13}

Thus, with respect to underlying policy, the requirement to 'report' seems no different than a 'notice' requirement. Each intends to protect the rights of employers and their sureties or, differently stated, to assure they are not prejudiced. As a matter of policy, then, the non-prejudice clause contained in the second sentence of I.C. § 72-405 appears equally applicable to 'reporting' as to 'notice.'

The legislature has not prescribed any special form for a 'report' under I.C. § 72-316(4); indeed, such report need not even be in writing. ¹⁴ Nor does the word 'reported' have a significantly different connotation from 'notice.' ¹⁵ Moreover, this Court on occasion has used those words interchangeably in discussion of I.C. § 72-316(4). ¹⁶

Unless we ignore the fundamental rule of harmonizing statutes in pari materia, we must decide that the lack of prejudice provision in the second sentence of I.C. § 72-405 qualifies I.C. § 72-316, and reverse the Board's order, even though respondent contends I.C. § 72-316(4) is an unambiguous exception to the proviso in the second sentence of I.C. § 72-405. Indeed, this Court has previously pointed out one major ambiguity of I.C. § 72-316(4); though the statute says 'the hernia (must be) reported,' this Court has construed the requirement to mean there must be notice of the injury which results in a hernia. ¹⁷ Moreover, the statute requires 'That the hernia (be) reported to the employer,' but this Court has held that actual knowledge by the employer ¹⁸ or by his agent ¹⁹ renders a 'report' unnecessary.

Lest there be any misunderstanding of the statutory construction principle which we apply here, we reaffirm the principle that a particular pertinent statute will prevail over a general pertinent statute, but only 'to the extent of any necessary repugnancy between them,' ²⁰ or 'in case of necessary conflict,' ²¹ or if the particular and the general statute 'are necessarily inconsistent.' ²² Nevertheless, the fundamental rule remains: harmonize statutes in pari materia 'so far as reasonably possible'; ²³ one statute-the more particular-prevails to the exclusion of the other only when two statutes are in 'irreconcilable conflict.'

In the present action, harmony of I.C. § 72-316(4) and I.C. § 72-405 is easily accomplished. Assuming that hernias are different from most other injuries in the immediacy of their appearance-and hence their special treatment by the legislature, this does not militate an absolute limitation interpretation of I.C. § 72-316(4). ²⁴ I.C. § 72-316(4) demands an employee report an accident resulting in a hernia sooner-thirty days instead of sixty-than he must report another type of industrial injury. ²⁵ In case of failure so to report, in order to preserve his claim the employee must then show employer's non-prejudice (or actual knowledge). This added burden of proving non-prejudice (or knowledge) arises sooner in hernia than in non-hernia cases, thus affording an employer added protection in hernia cases commensurate with the type of injury involved.

Respondents also contend I.C. § 72-405 (second sentence) is inapplicable to I.C. § 72-316(4) because I.C. § 72-405 is part of the original Workmen's Compensation Law of Idaho enacted in 1917, but I.C. § 72-316 (4) was added by amendment in 1927. This legislative history is not persuasive. As mentioned previously in this opinion, the in pari materia rule of statutory construction applies as well to statutes enacted at different times, and to amendments, as it applies to contemporaneously enacted statutes. ²⁶ It should be noted in this regard that the provision of I.C. § 72-402 requiring notice of an injury other than a hernia be made within sixty days of the accident was itself first enacted in 1929, twelve years after the statute that is now I.C. § 72-405. Nevertheless, this Court has consistently held that the second sentence of I.C. § 72-405 qualifies the sixty-day requirement of I.C. § 72-402. ²⁷

Respondents further contend Larson v. State, ²⁸ holds the reporting requirement of I.C. § 72-316(4) is absolute. But that case does not support such a proposition. In the Larson case, a tow chain lashed around the claimant's midsection, throwing...