Noles v. Aragon Mills

• Decision Date: 24 September 1964
• Docket Number: No. 1,No. 40899,40899,1
• Parties: W. C. NOLES v. ARAGON MILLS et al
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 598

138 S.E.2d 598

110 Ga.App. 374

W. C. NOLES v. ARAGON MILLS et al.

No. 40899.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

Sept. 24, 1964.

Marson G. Dunaway, Jr., Rockmart, for plaintiff in error.

Henry A. Stewart, Sr., Cedartown, for defendants in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

PANNELL, Judge.

At issue in the present case before the single director was (1) whether the one-year filing limitation on claims was tolled by reason of fraud of the employer resulting in the failure of the employee to file his claim within one year of an initial injury in 1960; and (2) whether there was a compensable aggravation or reinjury occurring in May, 1961, so that the filing of the claim thereon on October 18, 1961, was within the statute of limitation. The findings of fact and the award of the single director approved and adopted by the full board and approved by the judge of the superior court on appeal were: 'Findings of Fact. I find from the evidence adduced at the hearing that the claimant sustained an injury which arose in and out of the course of his employment on June 24, 1960, when he received a puncture-type injury to his left leg. That he was carried immediately to Rockmart-Aragon Hospital, and treated by Dr. Smith. That he was out of work for one week, but lost no compensable time as a result of this injury. That he returned to work and worked until May 19, 1961, at which time the place on his leg broke down, and he had to stop work and go back for additional treatment, and was later operated on and that later a skin graft was performed on his leg. I further find from the testimony that the claimant has had trouble with his leg since he was a small boy. I find from the testimony of Dr. C. M. Smith that the claimant has a disease of the bone which in his opinion was aggravated by the injury he sustained on June 24, 1960. I find that a claim for compensation was filed with the Board on October 18, 1961, and that it is the claimant's contention that he was lulled into a sense of security that amounted to a fraud, and would therefore toll the statute of limitations. I find from the evidence, that there was some action on the part of the employer that might have led the claimant to believe he would receive compensation, but this action was not to such an extent that it would lull him into a sense of security, and therefore, would not amount to a fraud on the part of the employer and would not toll the statute of limitations. I therefore...