Mooref1eld v. State Comp. Com'r
| Decision Date | 26 April 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 7282.,7282. |
| Citation | 164 S.E. 26 |
| Parties | MOOREF1ELD . v. STATE COMPENSATION COM'R. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
To entitle one to participate in the workmen's compensation fund, claim must be filed with the compensation commissioner before the expiration of six months from the date of the injury, except as provided in the statute, Code 1931, 23-4-15.
Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by E., E. Moorefield, employee of the Rich-Beckwith Construction Company. The State Compensation Commissioner dismissed the claim, and claimant appeals.
Affirmed.
Londa Lilly, for appellant.
H. B. Lee, Atty. Gen., and R. Dennis Steed., Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Appellant's claim for compensation was dismissed by the commissioner because not filed within six months after the date of injury as required by statute, Code 1931, 23-4-15.
Appellant, an employee of Rich-Beckwith Construction Company, a subscriber to the workmen's compensation fund, was injured October 6, 1930, while unloading rock from a truck. His claim for compensation was not received by the commissioner until the 21st of April, 1931, being fifteen days subsequent to the expiration of the six months' period fixed by statute.
The employer's report of the injury was received by the commissioner March 28, 1931, being more than five and one-half months subsequent to the date of the injury. There is no contradiction of appellant's testimony that he repeatedly insisted that the report should be made by his employer, and that on at least two occasions an officer of the company represented to appellant that the report had been made. Appellant further says that when the report was finally made he did not have sufficient time between the date of the report and expiration of the six months' period to file his claim and procure statements of physicians.
That the employer did not deal fairly with applicant in delaying to make a report of his injury and in falsely representing to him that the report had been made is in no wise controlling of the case. Appellant's right to file a claim for compensation was not contingent upon the filing of a report of the injury by the employer. In practice, ordinarily the employer's report is promptly made and the claim for compensation is filed thereafter, but the claimant need not wait to file his claim until after the employer's report has been made.
The statute cited has a proviso that if the employer fails to make report of an injury to an employee...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bailey v. SWCC
...in the compensation program depended on his satisfaction of statutory requirements. See, e.g., Moorefield v. State Compensation Commissioner, 112 W.Va. 229, 164 S.E. 26 (1932). Later cases recognized that the workmen's compensation system was a product of state police power and that "partic......
- Young v. State Compensation Com'r
-
Young v. State Comp. Comm'r
...of delay in delivery, even where war is being waged, cannot be used to suspend the operation of the statute. In Moorefield v. Compensation Com'r., 112 W. Va. 229, 164 S. E. 26. we held that the application must be filed with the Compensation Commissioner before the expiration of six months ......
- Moorefield v. State Compensation Com'r