Oglesby v. Greenville YWCA

• Decision Date: 10 January 1968
• Docket Number: No. 18748,18748
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Beatrice OGLESBY, Respondent, v. GREENVILLE YWCA and Standard Accident Insurance Company, Appellants.

Page 907

158 S.E.2d 907

250 S.C. 490

Beatrice OGLESBY, Respondent, v. GREENVILLE YWCA and Standard Accident Insurance Company, Appellants.

No. 18748.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Jan. 10, 1968.

Love, Thornton, Arnold & Thomason, Greenville, for appellants.

John Bolt Culbertson, Greenville, for respondent.

LITTLEJOHN, Justice.

In this workmen's compensation case the claimant suffered a cut-finger injury by a fellow employee while on the job December 28, 1963, and was away from employment for two weeks. Shortly after returning to work the employment relationship came to an end.

The employer tendered workmen's compensation for one week under the theory that two weeks employment was lost and no compensation is payable for the first week; such tender was refused. Thereafter, about March 1964, claimant employed Attorney Harold Morris of the Greenville Bar to pursue her claim. He obtained for her an offer of compromise settlement in the amount of $100 from the insurance carrier, which the claimant refused, and Mr. Morris withdrew from the case, notifying the attorney for the insurance carrier.

Thereafter, about June or July 1964, the claimant discussed the case on the telephone with the attorney for the insurance carrier, and was advised that the insurance carrier would pay no more than compensation for one week, and the matter would have to be ended.

Claimant made no further pursuit of the claim until February 1966, when she approached the insurance carrier's attorney and made demand for payments. The demand was refused and she employed present counsel who asked the Commission for a hearing. She now contends for several months disability. Section 72--303 of the South Carolina Code provides that 'the right to compensation * * * shall be forever barred unless a claim is filed with the Commission within one year after the accident * * *.'

Evidence was taken in the usual fashion and the single Hearing Commissioner in denying the claim, made two findings of fact relevant to this appeal as follows:

'2. It is found as a fact that the claimant did not file a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act within one (1) year after the date of the accident as required by Section 72--303. The first filing of the claimant's claim was made on April 13, 1966, more than two (2) years after the claimant's accident on December 28, 1963.

'3. It is found as a fact that the defendants neither waived that filing of the claim nor were they estopped by conduct from which it may be reasonably inferred that the claimant was misled or deceived whether intentionally or not.'

Upon review a majority of the full Commission held, 'that the single Commissioner erred in his findings of fact Nos. 2, 3 and * * *.'

By implication it can be argued that the reversal of both factual findings amounts to a holding by the full Commission that the claim was filed within one year (reversal of No. 2), and also that the claimant was misled or deceived into failing to file a claim within one year (reversal of No. 3). Such finding of fact by the full Commission is inconsistent because if the claimant filed within a year she could not have been misled or deceived. In the light of the entire order of the full Commission we conclude that the actual intent was to find that the claimant was misled or deceived into failing to file within one year; however, in view of the agreed statement wherein it is said, 'Plaintiff contends that the letter of Harold N. Morris, Esq., dated January 22, 1964 (Exhibit 1) constituted the filing of the claim under said Section.', we have studied the entire transcript to determine if the order of the Circuit Court and of the full Commission can be sustained either because it was filed...