Montell v. Orndorff
Decision Date | 30 June 1960 |
Docket Number | No. 6666,6666 |
Citation | 353 P.2d 680,67 N.M. 156,1960 NMSC 63 |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Parties | Louis MONTELL, Claimant, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Howard M. ORNDORFF, d/b/a Duke City Tool & Engineering Company, Employer; and U. S. Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Insurer, Defendants-Appellees. |
Rueckhaus & Watkins, Albuquerque, for appellant.
Keleher & McLeod, Russell D. Moore, Albuquerque, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment against a workmen's compensation claimant for failure to give notice to his employer as required by Sec. 59-10-13, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., as follows:
As related in claimant's deposition, the facts are these: The claimant is a machinist. On September 28, 1957, while in the course of his employment and while occupied in the process of flamecutting a large piece of steel about five feet square and four inches thick, he shifted the position of the steel on the cutting table. While thus moving the steel, claimant's foot slipped and he felt a burning sensation down low on his right side which lasted just for a moment after which claimant became sick at his atomach. He continued to work for about an hour and began to feel more sick at his stomach. He then told the work foreman that he felt bad and wanted to go home, which he did. The next working day was a Monday and when claimant returned to work he was discharged from his job.
On October 31, 1957, the claimant was given a physical examination in connection with his application for other employment. The examining doctor informed claimant that he had a hernia. On November 5, 1957, claimant underwent surgery for repair of a hernia on his lower right abdomen. On November 20, 1957, the operating surgeon told the claimant he would not be able to lift over fifty pounds the rest of his life and that the hernia had been caused by lifting something heavy. When the doctor made this statement, the claimant, for the first time, connected his injury with his exertions on September 28, 1957, in moving the steel plate, which incident represented the only time the claimant had done any kind of physical work to amount to anything, and the only time he had experienced pain. He had no hernia or symptoms of hernia before that date and he had had physical examinations in March of 1957, and also in 1953 and 1952. From the time claimant sustained his injury until he was informed he had a hernia, the claimant thought he was suffering from Asiatic flu, which was then prevalent in Albuquerque where the claimant lived.
On December 19, 1957, the claimant's attorney sent a written notice of accident and injury to the employer, which was received the following day.
On this appeal the claimant contends that this notice was sufficient under the statute under the principle of Elsea v. Broome Furniture Company, 1943, 47 N.M. 356, 143 P.2d 572, where it was held the employee's failure to give notice of a result flowing from his injury was excused where the employee had no knowledge of the true seriousness of his injury and expert medical attention was necessary to establish the causal connection between the injury and the result.
The employer relies upon our decision in Copeland v. Black, 1959, 65 N.M. 214, 334 P.2d 1116, which arose out of a situation very like that before us now and where we held the notice to be insufficient. That case emphasized the importance of timely notice to the employer in order that he may examine the facts of an accident while they are still accessible and provide medical treatment for the employee.
These considerations are very important, but they are to be given effect within the framework of legislation having as its object the provision of care and compensation for workmen who are injured by accident in the course of their employment. The Workmen's Compensation Act is remedial legislation and should be liberally construed to effect its purposes. Gonzales v. Chino Copper Co., 1924, 29 N.M. 228, 222 P. 903. Under the construction urged by the employer, as to a workman who does not know he has sustained a compensable injury, or who is not chargeable with that knowledge, the effect of the statute would be to require the impossible. We cannot attribute this result to legislative intent.
The status of American decisions on the issue raised here is well stated in 2 Larson's Workmen's Compensation Law, at page 251, as follows:
Further, at Vol. 2 Larson's Workmen's Compensation Law, p. 260, it is said:
'Except under statutes expressly dating the limitations period from the 'accident', the time for notice or claim does not begin to run until the claimant, as a reasonable man, should recognize the nature, seriousness and probable compensable character of his injury or disease.'
In the note following, No. 25, cases are collected from the numerous jurisdictions in support of the statement. The case of Minardi v. Pacific Airmotive Corp., 1957, 43 N.J.Super. 460, 129 A.2d 51, 55, is very like the case before us. The court rejected a claim that notice must be given within forty-eight hours after the occurrence of hernia, saying that it could hardly have been the legislative intent that the employee give notice of 'every slight accident, scratch, pinprick, or blow suffering in his work.' We quote from that opinion:
In Clausen v. Minnesota Steel Co., 1932, 186 Minn. 80, 242 N.W. 397, 398, the Court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hunt v. Cent. Consol. Sch. Dist.
...lawsuit to the same extent as that to which the law subjects other New Mexico political subdivisions. See Montell v. Orndorff, 67 N.M. 156, 166, 353 P.2d 680, 686 (1960) (“Unless there is some controlling consideration otherwise, we must assume that the legislature chose its words carefully......
-
Rodriguez v. Dairy
...after the date that our mandate issues in this case pursuant to Rule 12–402(B). See Montell v. Orndorff , 1960–NMSC–063, ¶ 9, 67 N.M. 156, 353 P.2d 680 (concluding that the “occurrence of injury” refers to “when disability appears—in other words, when the injury ... becomes manifest.” (inte......
-
Lewis v. Albuquerque Pub. Sch.
...146, 782 P.2d 904 ("A compensable injury requires some legal disability or inability to perform work[.]").{27} In Montell v. Orndorff , 1960-NMSC-063, 67 N.M. 156, 353 P.2d 680, our Supreme Court considered when a compensable injury occurred for purposes of determining whether an employee h......
-
Luvaul v. A. Ray Barker Motor Co.
...Workmen's Compensation Act is to be liberally construed. In numerous cases this doctrine has been followed by this court. Montell v. Orndorff, 67 N.M. 156, 353 P.2d 680; White v. Valley Land Company, 64 N.M. 9, 322 P.2d 707; Briggs v. Zia Company, 63 N.M. 148, 315 P.2d 217; Armijo v. Middle......