Duncan v. Gaffney Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 06 May 1949
• Docket Number: 16214.
• Citation: 53 S.E.2d 396,214 S.C. 502
• Parties: DUNCAN v. GAFFNEY MFG. CO. et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

53 S.E.2d 396

214 S.C. 502

DUNCAN v. GAFFNEY MFG. CO. et al.

No. 16214.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

May 6, 1949

Osborne, Butler & Moore, Spartanburg, for appellants.

Hyatt & Gossett, Spartanburg, Poliakoff & Poliakoff Spartanburg, for respondent.

OXNER, Justice.

This is an appeal by the employer and carrier from an order of the Circuit Court affirming, except as to one item, an award of the Industrial Commissions in favor of claimant, A. M Duncan. It is conceded that no claim was filed with the Industrial Commission within one year after the accident as required by Section 7035-27 of the 1942 Code. The only question we need determine is whether the Industrial Commission erred in holding that the conduct of the employer was such as to estop it from invoking this limitation on filing claims.

Claimant was employed as a loom fixer by the Gaffney Manufacturing Company. He contends that on January 29, 1939, while undertaking to lift a beam weighing three or four hundred pounds, he 'felt something tear inside' and fell. He was able to get up but shortly thereafter collapsed. Several of those nearby, including his second hand, came to his assistance. He was driven home and a physician summoned. After rendering first aid, this physician requested that he be immediately removed to the hospital. It developed that claimant had a perforated duodenal ulcer and an operation was performed. After recuperating, he returned to work. He says that three or four months later he had to give up his job because he was refused lighter work.

Claimant testified that he inquired of the second hand, the boss weaver and one of the men in the office about compensation and was told that the matter was receiving attention and in due time he would be paid all compensation benefits to which he was entitled; that he continued to make inquiries about the matter and on each occasion was assured that he would receive compensation; and that finally, nothing having been done, he consulted Mr. Godshall, a member of the Gaffney Bar about five days before the expiration of the time for filing a claim, and was advised by him that he 'had no case'. He says that he later learned that Mr. Godshall was an attorney for the Gaffney Manufacturing Company.

The second hand in the mill testified that he knew that claimant suffered an illness while working in the mill but understood that it was not due to an accident and, therefore, made no report to the mill office. Mr. Godshall denied telling claimant that he had no case. He testified that he thought claimant was entitled to compensation, but advised him that he had waited too long to file his claim. Before the hearing was concluded Mr. Godshall was able to locate his file, which was introduced in evidence and disclosed the following:

On May 25, 1940, claimant signed an agreement authorizing Mr. Godshall to represent him and a memorandum was made of the facts upon which he based his claim. Claimant then stated to Mr. Godshall that the mill was notified of the accident but no claim was filed with the Industrial Commission because he was afraid that he would be discharged. On May 31, 1940, Mr. Godshall wrote the Industrial Commission and inquired under what circumstances a claim could be filed after more than a year had elapsed since the date of the injury. (Neither the name of claimant nor the mill involved was disclosed). On June 6, 1940, the claims examiner of the Industrial Commission replied that 'no claim can be handled unless claim is made to the Commission within twelve months unless it can be proven to the satisfaction of the Commission that fraud has been perpetrated.' On June 10 1940, Mr. Godshall wrote claimant as follows:

'I have looked up the law in our case, which we have discussed, and the Workmen's Compensation Act, states as follows:

"Section 24(a). Must File Claim Within One Year of Accident or Death.--The right to compensation under this Act shall be forever barred unless a claim is filed with the Industrial Commission within one year after the accident, and if death results from the accident, unless a claim be filed with the Commission within one year thereafter.'

'Pursuant to this Section, I wrote to the South Carolina Industrial Commission and asked for their advices relative to the possibility of putting in a claim after twelve months had expired from the date of the injury. I have just received a letter from the Commission stating that it would be impossible to file a claim after twelve months had expired from the date of the injury, unless it can be proven to the satisfaction of the Commission that fraud has been perpetrated.

'In view of this decision, I would advise that we could not file the claim unless you can show that the Gaffney Manufacturing Company in some way committed a fraud upon you, such as, persuading you not to file a claim by promising you all kinds of things if you would not file a claim, or something of that kind that would show that they intended to keep you from filing a claim with the Commission.

'I would like for you to think this over and if there is anything which the Gaffney Manufacturing Company or its officers or bosses had done to prevent you from filing this claim, then let me know the full facts about same, because we are in a close spot in regard to the law relative to the one year period.

'Please write me at your earliest convenience as to the above matters.'

There is nothing in the record to show any response on the part of the claimant to the above letter. After leaving the Gaffney Manufacturing Company, claimant worked for a short time at three or four other mills and says that he finally had to discontinue all textile work. He then commenced the operation of a taxi service in the town of Gaffney and also farmed. He was engaged in this work at the time of the hearing before the Industrial Commission. Since the alleged accident, claimant has returned to the hospital on numerous occasions for treatment of his stomach condition. In January, 1941, a second operation was performed and a partial gastrectomy was done. He claims that he is now unable to work regularly and still suffers pain.

No claim was filed with the Industrial Commission until March, 1946. In addition to invoking the one year limitation on filing claims, the employer and carrier denied that claimant sustained an accident and also contended that the proof was insufficient to show any causal connection between the alleged accident and the disability claimed of.

We shall assume for the purpose of this discussion that the statements alleged to have been made to claimant were reasonably calculated to mislead him and induce him to withhold or postpone filing a claim for almost a year following the alleged occurrence. It is clear however, from claimant's testimony that when he consulted Mr. Godshall, he was then no longer relying on the alleged statements and had definitely concluded that it would be necessary to take some action to enforce payment of compensation. He says he was then told by Mr. Godshall that he 'had no case.' There is no foundation for his assertion that Mr. Godshall was representing his employer. The Industrial Commission properly found that 'there is absolutely no ground for criticising Mr. Godshall in his professional relationship with the claimant or of the advice he gave the claimant.' Indeed, the attorneys now representing claimant do not complain of the manner in which Mr. Godshall handled the matter. Though not material, it is apparent that claimant is mistaken in saying that Mr. Godshall was consulted...