Sunlight Coal Co. v. Floyd
| Decision Date | 28 March 1930 |
| Parties | SUNLIGHT COAL CO. et al. v. FLOYD. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Union County.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Collins Floyd opposed by the Sunlight Coal Company and another. The Workmen's Compensation Board dismissed the claim, and claimant appealed to the circuit court. From a judgment setting aside the order dismissing the claim and remanding the cause to the Compensation Board, the defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
V. C McDonald, of Louisville, for appellants.
Nunn & Waller and T. S. Waller, Jr., all of Paducah, for appellee.
Note: No brief was filed for appellee.
While working for the Sunlight Coal Company at its mines at Waverly, in Union county, Collins Floyd was severely injured as the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. On the same day, and pursuant to section 61 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Ky. St. § 4944), the accident was reported by the employer to the Workmen's Compensation Board on form No. 7. Shortly thereafter an agreement was entered into between the employer and Floyd reciting that his weekly wage at the time of the injury was $27, and fixing his compensation at $15 per week for an indennite period. This agreement purports to have been filed with the Workmen's Compensation Board on December 5, ______, but does not appear to have been approved by the board. Pursuant to the agreement, Floyd was paid $30 on August 3, 1927, $30 on August 18, 1927, $30 on September 7, 1927, $45 on September 17, 1927, and $30 on October 10, 1927. For each of these payments Floyd receipted on form No. 17, and the receipts were filed with the board. After the October payment, no further payments were made. On February 4, 1928, Floyd filed with the Workmen's Compensation Board an application for the adjustment of his claim. The case was set for hearing on July 10, 1928, and was heard by Hon. James R. Higdon, referee.
Floyd testified that when he went to work it was the understanding that he should work under the Compensation Act, and that he had no other understanding with the Sunlight Coal Company, but that he did not know whether he signed the compensation register or not. He received a four-inch gash across the top of his head on the left side. His ear was torn loose, and a bone broken out on the right side, his eardrum was burst, he lost one front tooth, and had a split place on his left knee. After being treated by certain local physicians, he was taken to the hospital at Henderson and remained there ten weeks. He was then called over the phone by the attorney of the insurance carrier, and told to come to Louisville, where he entered the Baptist hospital and was operated on by Dr. Allen. Fragments of bone were taken out of his head. He stayed in the hospital seven days, but remained in Louisville under treatment for about seven weeks. He was then told by the attorney that, as the doctor at Louisville had discharged him as well, he would have to go to the board for final payment. On his return he went to work, but was off about one-half the time. There was a discharge from the old wound, and he had to swab it out frequently with cotton. At the time he testified he was engaged in running a machine, but was advised by his physician that he was not able to do that.
Two or three physicians testified as to the extent of his injuries, and were of the opinion that he was almost, if not wholly, disabled. Mr. Donovan testified that it was the understanding that the employees of the Sunlight Coal Company were to receive compensation according to the Compensation Law, but that they had had no papers there since the Leland Coal Company, or, if they had, they kept them hid. T. H. Green, superintendent of the Sunlight Coal Company, testified that the company kept a compensation register, that he had examined the register and the name of Floyd did not appear on it.
On completion of the evidence the Sunlight Coal Company entered a motion to dismiss the application on the ground that Floyd had not accepted the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The board...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bakker v. Baza'r, Inc.
...estoppel against the defendant employer. Compare Wilford v. Sigmund Eisner Co., supra, and Ham v. Gouge, supra, With Sunlight Coal Co. v. Floyd, 233 Ky. 702, 26 S.W.2d 530 (1930), and Welser v. Ealer, 317 Pa. 182, 176 A. 429 (1935). Cf. Hansen v. Hayes, 175 Or. 358, 154 P.2d 202 (1944); Har......
-
Brollier v. Van Alstine
... ... 382; Secs. 3694 (c), 3715, R. S. 1939 ... Spurgeon ... L. Smithson and Floyd R. Gibson for respondent ... (1) Van ... Alstine was a major employer within ... 400; Leilich v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 328 Mo. 112, ... 40 S.W.2d 601; Burgstand v. Crowe Coal Co., 336 Mo ... 119, 77 S.W.2d 97; Shroyer v. Mo. Livestock Comm ... Co., 332 Mo. 1219, 61 ... Underwriters v. Jones, 125 S.W.2d 393; Ham v ... Mullins Lumber Co., 7 S.E.2d 712; Sunlight Coal Co ... v. Floyd, 26 S.W.2d 530; Brown v. Chicago R. I. & P ... R. Co., 231 Mo.App. 126, ... ...
-
Johnson v. Dave's Auto Center, Inc.
...contention that defendants are themselves estopped to plead the defense of election of remedies, see Sunlight Coal Co. v. Floyd, 233 Ky. 702, 26 S.W.2d 530, 532 (1930); Harrison v. McCarty, 178 Md. 377, 13 A.2d 544, 545 (1940); and Hampshire Arms Hotel Co. v. St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Comp......
-
Gray v. W. T. Congleton Co.
... ... Dunn v. Eaton, 233 Ky. 699, 26 S.W.2d 513; ... Sandlick Coal Co. v. Day, 233 Ky. 632, 26 S.W.2d ... 521. It is the accepted rule that its findings of facts is ... conclusive on the courts where some evidence supports it ... Sun Light Coal Co. v. Floyd, 233 Ky. 702, 26 S.W.2d ... 530; McCombs Coal Co. v. Alford, 234 Ky. 42, 27 ... S.W.2d 430; ... ...