Richardson v. National Refining Co.

• Decision Date: 28 January 1933
• Docket Number: 30831.
• Citation: 18 P.2d 131,136 Kan. 724
• Parties: RICHARDSON v. NATIONAL REFINING CO. et al. [*]
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

18 P.2d 131

136 Kan. 724

RICHARDSON v. NATIONAL REFINING CO. et al. ^[*]

No. 30831.

Supreme Court of Kansas

January 28, 1933

Syllabus by the Court.

Instrument which advises employer that injured employee is looking to employer for compensation constitutes sufficient claim; no particular form being required (Rev. St. Supp. 1931 44--520a).

In determining whether instrument constitutes written claim for compensation, court will consider circumstances surrounding parties (Rev. St. Supp. 1931, 44--520a).

Instrument served by employee on employer narrating facts of employee's injury held to constitute "written claim for compensation" within statute (Rev. St. Supp. 1931 44--520a).

Furnishing of medical aid to injured employee constituted "payment of compensation" within statute; hence claim filed within 90 days after last furnishing of medical aid was within time (Rev. St. Supp. 1931, 44--520a).

1. On the question of whether a particular writing constitutes a written claim for compensation under the provisions of R.S.Supp. 1931, 44--520a, this court will consider the circumstances and conditions surrounding the parties with a view to determining their intention, and arriving at a reasonable interpretation of the writing.

2. In order to constitute a written claim under the provisions of R.S.Supp. 1931, 44--520a, no particular form is required and it is sufficient if it advises the employer that the injured employee is looking to it for compensation.

3. The furnishing of medical aid to an injured employee constitutes the payment of compensation within the meaning of R.S.Supp 1931, 44--520a, and a written claim for compensation filed within ninety days of the last furnishing of medical aid is filed in time.

Appeal from District Court, Montgomery County; J. W. Holdren, Judge.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by George E Richardson, claimant, against the National Refining Company, employer, and the Columbia Casualty Company, insurer. Judgment for the claimant, and the employer and insurer appeal.

Irwin Snattinger, Hugh T. Fisher, and E. B. Smith, all of Topeka, Carl E. Ziegler, of Coffeyville, and E. R. Adams, of Kansas City, for appellants.

Charles D. Ise, of Coffeyville, for appellee.

SMITH J.

This was an action for workmen's compensation. Judgment was for the claimant. Respondent appeals.

Appellee was injured on May 17 by splashing some oil in his eye. He was treated by a doctor recommended by the insurance company. At the time of the hearing before the examiner a medical expert testified that the loss of vision in his eye was 99.9 percent. While appellant argues some points with reference to the amount of compensation allowed, the question which is relied on for a reversal is that no written claim was filed within ninety days of the injury, as required by R.S.Supp. 1931, 44--520a.

This court can only examine the case in the light of the facts as they were found by the trial court. The trial court decided the case upon the record that was made before the examiner for the workmen's compensation commission. The examiner made the following findings: "The serious question in the case is that of whether demand for compensation was made. No formal written demand in terms was made on respondent by claimant. He did sign a statement narrating the facts of his injury on September 23rd, 1929. At the time this statement was signed by him the matter of compensation was under discussion between himself and the attorney for the insurance carrier who procured the statement. It seems to the examiner, and is so held that this was intended as and was a claim for compensation within the meaning of the act, in view of the discussion had at the time the statement was signed. However, this statement was not signed and given to respondent until more than ninety days had elapsed after the injury. It was during a time, however, or immediately thereafter when respondent was furnishing medical aid to claimant. The furnishing of medical attention is a payment of compensation within the meaning of the act and the claim mentioned above being made less than ninety days after the last furnishing of medical attention was within time and is a valid claim."

The statement referred to by the examiner was as follows:

"My name is G. E. Richardson. I am employed at the National Refining Company at Coffeyville, Kansas. I work on the loading rack.

"On May 17, about 9:30 A. M., I was inside a tank car cleaning out the fuel oil. I was sweeping fuel oil towards the end of the car and without knowing I was near the end of the car, I swept against the end of the car and splashed fuel oil over myself. Some of the fuel oil hit my face and eyes. I wiped my eyes out with a clean rag and continued working. That night my eyes bothered me quite a bit and continued to hurt until the 21st of May when I reported to Dr. Chadwick for treatment. I have been under Dr. Chadwick's care ever since. I have not lost any time because of the injury.

"Right after the oil splashed into my eyes, I informed Lee Burgman my foreman, and also Clarence Slusher, a fellow employee, on the loading rack. Th...