Prassas v. J. F. McElwain Co.
| Decision Date | 31 May 1956 |
| Citation | 123 A.2d 157,100 N.H. 209 |
| Parties | George N. PRASSAS v. J. F. McELWAIN COMPANY et al. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Sheehan, Phinney & Bass, Manchester, William L. Phinney, Manchester, for plaintiff.
Wiggin, Nourie, Sundeen, Nassikas & Pingree, Manchester, Paul E. Nourie, Manchester, for defendants.
This case involves a difficult problem in the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Law, where a relatively trivial accident is claimed to result in a serious disabling injury after the one-year period for modification has expired. The agreement for compensation executed by the employee and the employer's insurance carrier was approved by the Labor Commissioner pursuant to RSA 281:36. The legal effect of this agreement was the same as an award made under RSA 281:37, both of which were subject to modification under RSA 281:40. Diamond v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, 97 N.H. 510, 513, 92 A.2d 925. The pertinent part of RSA 281:40 reads as follows: 'Upon application of any party in interest upon the ground of change in the conditions, mistake as to nature or extent of injury or disability, fraud, undue influence or coercion, the commissioner of labor or the superior court, whichever made the original award, may, not later than one year after the date of the last payment fixed by the award, review said award, and upon such review, may make an order ending, diminishing or increasing the compensation previously awarded, subject to the maximum or minimum provided in this chapter * * *.'
The right to reopen or review a compensation agreement or an award is specifically limited to the period 'not later than one year after the date of the last payment fixed by the award'. This statute is not ambiguous and while it may constitute a severe time limitation (2 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, § 81.10), there is no indication that the Legislature intended that either the Court or the Labor Commissioner should have authority to extend it. Zeady v. Arms Textile Mfg. Co., 96 N.H. 328, 331, 76 A.2d 512. This Court has not hesitated to construe RSA 281:40 as inapplicable where the agreement for compensation had not been approved by the Labor Commissioner. Croteau v. Harvey and Landers, 99 N.H. 264, 109 A.2d 553. However in the present case where the agreement was approved by the Labor Commissioner the one-year limitation period controlled. Therrien v. Waumbec Mills, Inc., 99 N.H. 137, 106 A.2d 565.
At least as early as 1921 this Court has given a liberal interpretation to the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law whenever possible, Mulhall v. Nashua Mfg. Co., 80 N.H. 194, 115 A. 449, and has stated that it would continue to do so. Dustin v. Lewis, 99 N.H. 404, 408, 112 A.2d 54. However the wording of RSA 281:40 'is unequivocal to the effect that no proceedings for modification shall be brought 'later than one year after the date of the last payment fixed by the award''. Therrien v. Waumbec Mills, Inc., supra, 99 N.H. 139-140, 106 A.2d 567.
It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LaBonte v. National Gypsum Co.
...compensation filed and approved under RSA 281:36 is a bar on a theory of res adjudicata or preclusion of remedy. Prassas v. J. F. McElwain Company, 100 N.H. 209, 123 A.2d 157; Strong v. New Hampshire Box Company, 82 N.H. 221, 131 A. 688; Vestal, Res Judicata/Preclusion, 43 (1969). If, after......
-
Cate v. M. S. Perkins Mach. Co.
...of the Workmen's Compensation Law whenever possible * * * and has stated that it would continue to do so.' Prassas v. J. F. McElwain Company, 100 N.H. 209, 211, 123 A.2d 157, 158. In the absence of a provision in the statute (RSA ch. 281) requiring that an employee submit to an operation an......
-
Smith v. American Emp. Ins. Co.
...contention but as we have often held such a question of policy is for the Legislature and not for this court. Prassas v. J. F. McElwain Company, 100 N.H. 209, 211, 123 A.2d 157. In summary, we are asked by the defendant to construe a statute, which the Legislature has directed should be lib......
-
Petition of Correia
...Compensation § 2552 (3d ed. 1959); see Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Duvall, 113 N.H. 28, 300 A.2d 732 (1973); Prassas v. Company, 100 N.H. 209, 211, 123 A.2d 157, 158 (1956); Mulhall v. Company, 80 N.H. 194, 199, 115 A. 449, 453 Ranger v. N.H. Youth Dev. Center, 117 N.H. 648, 652, 377 A.2d......