Hickman v. Gumerson

• Decision Date: 10 March 1942
• Docket Number: 30026.
• Citation: 125 P.2d 765,190 Okla. 514,1942 OK 104
• Parties: HICKMAN v. GUMERSON.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

125 P.2d 765

190 Okla. 514, 1942 OK 104

HICKMAN v. GUMERSON.

No. 30026.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

March 10, 1942

Rehearing Denied May 12, 1942.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The right to compensation under the workmen's compensation law is statutory and the remedy provided is by special proceedings.

2. The filing of a copy of an award of the Industrial Commission with a court clerk as provided by section 13366, O.S.1931, 85 O.S.1941 § 42, is not the commencement of a civil action and is not governed by sections 98 and 101, O.S.1931, 12 O.S.1941 §§ 92 and 95, limiting the time for bringing "civil actions."

3. An award of the Industrial Commission is not affected by the general provisions of the statutes limiting the time for the issuance of execution, prior to the time a copy thereof is filed in the office of a court clerk.

Appeal from District Court, Garfield County; O. C. Wybrant, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by C. A. Hickman claimant, opposed by William Gumerson. From a judgment of the district court of Garfield County wherein three-year statute of limitations was held applicable to matured payments of the State Industrial Commission's award after certification to the district court sustaining portion of unmatured payments and directing court clerk not to issue process to enforce payments held barred, the claimant appeals.

Reversed and remanded for such further action as might be proper in accordance with opinion.

Will T Wright, of New York City, and Wilson & Wilson, of Enid, for plaintiff in error.

Simons McKnight, Simons, Mitchell & McKnight, of Enid, for defendant in error.

WELCH Chief Justice.

In October, 1933, plaintiff in error, Hickman, received an award of compensation at the hands of the State Industrial Commission providing for weekly payments for not exceeding 300 weeks. The award became final; no subsequent change was made therein and no part of same has been paid.

In October, 1939, a certified copy of the award was filed in the office of the court clerk of Garfield County. No such copy had previously been filed in any county within the state. In subsequent proceedings to enforce the award through the district court of said county it was asserted that same is barred by the statutes of limitations in an attempt to stay such proceedings.

The trial court applied the general three year statute of limitations, subdivision two, section 101, O.S.1931, 12 O.S.1941 § 95, refusing to enforce collection of all portions of the award which matured more than three years prior to the date of filing copy thereof in the office of the court clerk. Claimant appeals.

The right to compensation for injury under the workmen's compensation act is purely statutory. The act creates the right and provides the remedy which is by summary special proceedings. Lahoma Oil Co. v. State Industrial Comm., 71 Okl. 160, 175 P. 836, 15 A.L.R. 817; Smith v. Baker, 157 Okl. 155, 11 P.2d 132; Birmingham Belt R. Co. v. Ellenburg, 215 Ala. 395, 111 So. 219.

The act provides the special procedure for establishing the right or claim before the State Industrial Commission and for purposes of enforcement only by section 13366, O.S.1931, 85 O.S.1941 § 42, adopts the law relating to judgments of the district court after copy of award has been filed therein.

Though the act provides for the utilization of the machinery and process applicable to the courts, such procedure for collection is but additional special procedure in furtherance of the purpose of the workmen's compensation act. That is to establish and collect compensation for certain classes of injured workmen.

It is properly conceded that neither section 13366, supra, nor any other specific provision of the workmen's compensation act proper, limits the time for filing the copy of the award in the office of a court clerk.

It is urged, however, that since there is no special limitation the general statute of limitations of actions applies.

That section 101, O.S.1931, supra, provides so far as is pertinent here, as follows:

"Civil actions, other than for the recovery of real property, can only be brought within the following periods, after the cause of action shall have accrued, and not afterwards:

First. ***

Second. Within three years:

An action upon a contract express or implied not in writing; an action upon a liability created by statute other than a forfeiture or penalty."

Observe that the quoted statute bars only the bringing of a "civil action." If the act of filing a copy of the award constitutes bringing a civil action, then defendant in error's contention would seem to have merit, otherwise not. We said in Standard Paving Co. v. Lemmon, 129 Okl. 15, 263 P. 140, 142: "Statutes of limitation should not be applied to cases not clearly within their provisions. They are creatures of the statute and, unless clearly shown, should not be applied."

Section 8, O.S.1931, 12 O.S.1941 § 3, divides remedies into "actions" and "special proceedings."

Sections 9 and 10, O.S.1931, 12 O.S.1941 §§ 4 and 5, define actions and special proceedings as follows:

"An action is an ordinary proceeding in a court of justice by which a party prosecutes another party for the enforcement or protection of a right, the redress or prevention of a wrong, or the punishment of a public offense." "10. Special proceeding defined.

Every other remedy is a special proceeding."

The mere filing of a copy of the award in the office of the court clerk is all that is required by section 13366, supra,...