Mascitelli v. Giuliano & Sons Coal Co., 21284
| Decision Date | 17 May 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 21284,21284 |
| Parties | Joe MASCITELLI and Industrial Commission of Colorado, Plaintiffs in Error, v. GIULIANO & SONS COAL COMPANY and State Compensation Insurance Fund, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Peter L. Dye, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiffs in error.
Harold Clark Thompson, Alious Rocket, Francis L. Bury, Feay Burton Smith, Jr., Denver, for defendants in error.
Plaintiffs in error seek review of a judgment of the district court which reversed findings and award in a proceeding arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act (C.R.S. '53, 81-1-1 et seq.).
It appears that Mascitelli, the claimant, on March 5, 1956, had suffered an injury to his right foot while employed as a coal miner, for which he was granted a 35% disability. The sole issue on this writ of error is whether the Industrial Commission was correct in ordering his case reopened on his request under C.R.S. '53, 81-14-19 when he alleged increased disability to 50% due to the accident.
The pertinent part of the statute reads:
'Commission may review on own motion--notice.--Upon its own motion on the ground of * * * a change in condition, the commission, at any time * * * within six years from the date of the accident * * * and after notice of hearing to the parties interested, may review any award * * *.'
As stated, the accident occurred March 5, 1956. Subsequently, on March 3, 1962, claimant wrote a letter to the Commission asking that his claim be reopened. This request (which in legal effect should be considered as a petition) was received March 5, 1962 and was followed by action of the Commission which resulted in an order to reopen being entered May 1, 1962--the latter date admittedly being more than six years after the accident. The insurer, a defendant in error here, objected to any reopening and alleged that the Commission was without jurisdiction to act.
It is to be noted that the statute does not provide the exact point at which the six year limitation becomes effective. Defendants in error urge that the Commission must act within the six year period and plaintiff in error states that the filing of the notice by a claimant prior to the termination of the period tolls the running of the statute.
We conclude that plaintiffs in error's contention is correct. The purpose of this statute is not to place arbitrary power in the hands of the Commission, but to give it power,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dillingham v. Greeley Pub. Co., 82SC411
...of process can be effected after the statute of limitations has run. See C.R.C.P. 3; C.R.C.P. 4. See also Mascitelli v. Giuliano & Sons Coal Co., 157 Colo. 240, 402 P.2d 192 (1965) (generally, filing of a pleading or a motion is effective to stop the running of specified time limitations). ......
-
Garcia v. Schneider Energy Servs., Inc.
...because the filing of the original complaint tolls the statute of limitations. Id. at 32 (citing Mascitelli v. Giuliano & Sons Coal Co., 157 Colo. 240, 242, 402 P.2d 192, 193 (1965)). Consistent with our decision in Dillingham, then, the appropriate inquiry is whether the time between the f......
-
Moore v. Grossman
...have reached a result consistent with the rationale underlying our ruling in this case. For example, in Mascitelli v. Giuliano & Sons Coal Co., 157 Colo. 240, 402 P.2d 192 (1965), the court ruled that, once a workers' compensation claimant properly files a notice to reopen his claim within ......
-
Kersting v. Industrial Commission
...Act "is to be liberally construed to effectuate its humanitarian purpose of assisting injured workers." Mascitelli v. Guilliano & Sons Coal Co., 157 Colo. 240, 402 P.2d 192 (1965). This insight into the intent and purpose of the statute, coupled with prior cases finding a waiver or estoppel......
-
Update on Colorado Appellate Decisions in Colorado Worker's Compensation Law
...for "unreasonable" conduct). 24. Federal Express, 31 Colo.Law.. 161 (Aug. 2002) (Colo.App. No. 01CA2563, annc'd 6/20/02). 25. Mascitelli, 402 P.2d 192 26. Id. at 193. 27. Id. 28. Mountain City Meat Co. v. Oqueda, 919 P.2d 246 (Colo. 1996); Weld County School District RE-12 v. Bymer, 9955 P.......