Meyers v. Lehigh Valley Transportation Company
| Decision Date | 30 January 1940 |
| Docket Number | 73-1939,72-1939 |
| Parties | Meyers v. Lehigh Valley Transportation Company et al., Appellants |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Argued December 12, 1939
Appeals from order of C. P., Northampton Co., June T., 1938 No. 41, in case of Roland E. Meyers v. Lehigh Valley Transportation Company et al.
Appeal by claimant from decision of Workmen's Compensation Board dismissing appeal from referee's order disallowing compensation.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Exceptions sustained, order of board reversed and record remitted for further determination, opinion by McCluskey, P. J. Defendants appealed.
Error assigned was the order of the court below.
Order reversed.
A Albert Gross, for appellants.
Nathan L. Reibman, for appellee.
Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeld, Parker Rhodes and Hirt, JJ.
The principal question presented for determination in this workmen's compensation case is whether the claim petition was filed too late. The claim petition was dated April 6, 1937, sworn to by claimant on April 7, 1937, and filed on April 10, 1937. The accident, resulting in injuries to claimant, occurred on April 3, 1936, and the parties did not agree upon the compensation payable to claimant. Defendant, in its answer to the claim petition, stated that claimant failed to file his petition within the period of one year from the date of the accident, and was therefore barred under section 315, art. 3, of the Workmen's Compensation Act of June 2, 1915, P. L. 736, 77 PS § 602.
The referee dismissed claimant's petition for the reason that it was not filed within one year after the alleged accident, and made no further findings of fact. The board affirmed the referee's order of disallowance, and made no findings of fact except to say: "The claimant had been very lax and dilatory in presenting his claim and as a result it was not filed until it was too late." On appeal the court of common pleas sustained claimant's exceptions, and reversed the order of the board. That court concluded that defendant by its conduct was estopped from invoking the statute of limitations as contained in section 315 of the act, 77 PS § 602. Defendant and its insurance carrier have appealed.
The question involved may be stated thus: Was the failure of claimant to file his petition within the time limited by the act due to such acts or conduct of defendant and its insurance carrier as tolled the statute and estopped them from presenting the statutory provision as a bar to claimant's demand for compensation?
If claimant was deceived or misled in connection with filing his claim petition by defendant and its insurance carrier, who are now seeking to take advantage of the limitation, we think that the running of the statute would be tolled. Guy v. Stoecklein Baking Co. et al., 133 Pa.Super. 38, 48, 1 A.2d 839. The conduct of defendant and its insurance carrier may be such as to estop them from presenting the statutory limitation as a defense in bar of the claim for compensation, if the effect of such conduct was to mislead or deceive claimant, whether intentionally or not, and induce him to withhold or postpone filing his claim petition until more than a year had elapsed from the occurrence of the accident. Demmel v. Dilworth Co. et al., 136 Pa.Super. 37, 39, 7 A.2d 50.
On April 3, 1936, claimant, while in the employ of defendant employer as a bus driver, stepped out of a bus backward missed the step, and fell striking his back on the curb. He reported the accident immediately to his superior, William T. Wert, and was relieved from duty that day. Claimant testified that he immediately made out "the state report," and Mr. Wert testified that he prepared and forwarded to the claim department of defendant a compensation report of the accident. Claimant, on returning home, treated his injuries. The next day he reported for work, and worked until December 14, 1936. From December 22, 1936, when examined by his physician, to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v. Sonoco Products Co.
... ... Company, hereinafter for convenience ... [41 S.E.2d 861] ... of New ... Jersey, 206 S.C. 286, 33 S.E.2d 889. In Meyers v ... Lehigh Valley Transp. Co. et al., 138 Pa.Super ... ...
-
American Cas. Co. of Reading v. Kligerman
...38, 1 A.2d 839; Demmel v. Dilworth Company et al., 136 Pa.Super. 37, 70 A.2d 50; Meyers v. Lehigh Valley Transportation Company et al., 138 Pa.Super. 569, 10 A.2d 879; Rowles v. State Workmen's Insurance Fund et al., 141 Pa.Super. 193, 14 A.2d 551; Reichert v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company,......
-
Mackanitz v. Pittsburgh & West Va. Ry. Co.
...cannot be permitted to benefit from a neglect for which he is himself primarily responsible. Meyers v. Lehigh Valley Trans. Co., 138 Pa.Super. 569, 10 A.2d 879; Demmel v. Dilworth, 136 Pa.Super. 37, 7 A.2d 50. The key to the proper disposition of this appeal is the proposition that the burd......
-
Behanna v. Meyers
...The principles enunciated in Meyers v. Lehigh Valley Transportation Company, 138 Pa.Super. 569, 10 A.2d 879, are applicable here. In the Meyers case, the through Judge Rhodes, now President Judge, said: "If claimant was deceived or misled in connection with filing his claim petition by defe......