Great American Indemnity Co. v. Britton
Decision Date | 19 December 1949 |
Docket Number | No. 10005.,10005. |
Citation | 179 F.2d 60,86 US App. DC 44 |
Parties | GREAT AMERICAN INDEMNITY CO. v. BRITTON, Deputy Commissioner, Federal Security Agency, et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Guy M. Bayes, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Paul J. Sedgwick, Washington, D. C., on the brief for appellant.
Mr. Ward E. Boote, Chief Counsel, Bureau of Employees' Compensation, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. George Morris Fay, United States Attorney, John D. Lane, Assistant United States Attorney, and Herbert P. Miller, Assistant Chief Counsel, Bureau of Employees' Compensation, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for appellee Britton.
Mr. Robert J. Hawkins, Washington, D. C., was on the brief for appellee Taylor. Mr. Charles Effinger Smoot, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for the appellee Taylor.
Before CLARK, WASHINGTON and BAZELON, Circuit Judges.
This case arises under the workmen's compensation law in effect in the District of Columbia, namely, the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act of March 4, 1927, 44 Stat. 1424, 33 U.S. C.A. § 901 et seq., as made applicable to the District by the act of May 17, 1928, 45 Stat. 600, D.C.Code 1940, § 36 — 501, 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 note.
On March 11, 1946, Douglas D. Taylor, a carpenter and the claimant in this case, slipped while climbing a stair in a house under construction. He suffered pain immediately in his right foot, and during the day his foot and leg became swollen, discolored, and painful. He notified the employer shortly after the accident, and was given easier work for the remainder of the day. At the close of the day claimant was given an option by his employer of consulting his own physician or going to a hospital. He consulted his own family physician, who treated him and some days later advised him that his final diagnosis was that claimant was suffering from an illness (a thrombus) in the leg rather than from an accidental injury, and that he had filed a medical report with the employer to that effect. On March 12 the condition of the leg was such that the claimant was unable to work, and remained away from work for seven and one-half weeks. Claimant's physician continued to treat him until sometime in the summer of 1946, when the physician died. In November 1946 claimant consulted another physician, who advised that there had been no thrombus or other vascular disease but that the achilles tendon had apparently been torn. On April 4, 1947, claimant was referred to a third physician, an orthopedic specialist, whose diagnosis was that the achilles tendon had been torn through its major part and that an operation was required. He operated on the claimant in May 1947, at which time his diagnosis was confirmed and the necessary repairs made. Claimant informally notified the employer of the new diagnosis sometime during April 1947. On May 16, 1947, he filed a formal claim for compensation.
After the claimant had received an award, the appellant insurance carrier brought suit in the District Court to enjoin its enforcement. The District Court dismissed the complaint, and the carrier now appeals.
The sole question of substance advanced by the appellant is whether the claim was filed on a timely basis, or whether it is barred by section 13(a) of the compensation statute, 33 U.S.C.A. § 913(a), which provides:
The deputy commissioner who heard this case made a finding that the claim was timely filed. Such a finding is entitled to great weight. In Cardillo v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 1947, 330 U.S. 469, 67 S.Ct. 801, 91 L.Ed. 1028, the Supreme Court said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cooper Stevedoring of Louisiana, Inc. v. Washington
...result of a circuit conflict between Pillsbury v. United Engineering Co., 9 Cir., 1951, 187 F.2d 987, and Great American Indemnity Co. v. Britton, 1949, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 44, 179 F.2d 60, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Pillsbury v. United Engineering Co. 8 The conflicting decisions, ......
-
Pillsbury v. United Engineering Co
...judicial support from the appellate courts of the District of Columbia Circuit and of the Third Circuit. See Great American Indemnity Co. v. Britton, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 44, 179 F.2d 60; Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Cardillo, 71 App.D.C. 163, 107 F.2d 962; Di Giorgio Fruit Corp. v. Norton, 3 C......
-
Levo v. General-Shea-Morrison
...to put Mr. Levo in a position where he could and did rely on them. Paraphrasing language used in the case of Great American Indemnity Co. v. Britton, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 44, 179 F.2d 60, the advice here given by the assistant project manager and personnel director and the advice given by a lawy......
-
BRADY-HAMILTON STEVEDORE COMPANY v. O'LEARY
...88, 98 L.Ed. 5 (1953); Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. Donovan, 279 F.2d 76 (5th Cir.1960); Great American Indemnity Co. v. Britton, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 44, 179 F.2d 60 (1949). I feel that these cases, and others cited by respondent, have little, if any, application to the problem befor......