Clodfelter v. United Furniture Co.
Decision Date | 05 September 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 7710IC954,7710IC954 |
Citation | 247 S.E.2d 263,38 N.C.App. 45 |
Parties | Charles CLODFELTER, Employee-Plaintiff, v. UNITED FURNITURE COMPANY, Employer, American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., Carrier, Defendants. |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Gerrans & Spence, by C. E. Gerrans, Kinston, for plaintiff.
Teague, Johnson, Patterson, Dilthey & Clay, by George W. Dennis, III, Raleigh, for defendants.
The question for decision is whether there was sufficient evidence of estoppel to give the North Carolina Industrial Commission jurisdiction when no claim was filed by the plaintiff within the time allowed by G.S. 97-24(a). We answer the question in the negative. G.S. 97-24(a) provides:
"The right to compensation under this Article shall be forever barred unless a claim be filed with the Industrial Commission within two years after the accident, and if death results from the accident, unless a claim be filed with the Commission within one year thereafter."
Plaintiff contends the employer should be estopped from asserting the lateness of a claim if the employer discouraged the filing through misrepresentation, deception or assurances. He argues that his evidence should invoke the doctrine of estoppel for that defendants' employees could not recall what they might have said at the time of the accident.
The general rule in this State is stated in Hart v. Motors, 244 N.C. 84, 88, 92 S.E.2d 673, 676 (1956):
See Barham v. Hosiery Co., 15 N.C.App. 519, 190 S.E.2d 306 (1972).
There is a direct contradiction between the testimony presented by the plaintiff and that offered by the defendants. A resolution of this conflict necessarily requires passage on the credibility of the witnesses involved. In finding as a fact and concluding as a matter of law that there is insufficient evidence of estoppel to confer jurisdiction on the Commission, both Deputy Commissioner Delbridge and the Full Commission have resolved this credibility question contrary to the plaintiff. This being so, this...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Parker v. Thompson-Arthur Paving Co.
...by consent of the parties, by waiver or by estoppel. Hart v. Motors, 244 N.C. 84, 92 S.E.2d 673 (1956); Clodfelter v. Furniture Co., 38 N.C.App. 45, 247 S.E.2d 263 (1978). Prior to the 1985 decision in Belfield v. Weyerhaeuser Co., supra, the question was unresolved whether "under all circu......
-
Poythress v. J. P. Stevens and Co., Inc.
...of the parties, waiver, or estoppel. Hart v. Motors, 244 N.C. 84, 88, 92 S.E.2d 673, 676 (1956). See also Clodfelter v. Furniture Co., 38 N.C.App. 45, 247 S.E.2d 263 (1978); Barham v. Hosiery Co., 15 N.C.App. 519, 190 S.E.2d 306 Applying this law to the present case, we hold that the two-ye......
-
Tilly v. High Point Sprinkler
...waiver, or estoppel." Hart v. Motors, 244 N.C. 84, 88, 92 S.E.2d 673, 676 (1956) (citation omitted). See also Clodfelter v. Furniture Co., 38 N.C.App. 45, 247 S.E.2d 263 (1978); Barham, 15 N.C.App. 519,190 S.E.2d In support of his contention that the claim for the 19 October 1992 injury was......
-
Weston v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 8210IC1170
...or estoppel. Hart v. Motors, 244 N.C. 84, 92 S.E.2d 673 (1956); Barham v. Kayser-Roth Hosiery Co., supra; Clodfelter v. Furniture Co., 38 N.C.App. 45, 247 S.E.2d 263 (1978). Nevertheless, plaintiff argues that, based on the facts of this case, the defendant is equitably estopped from assert......