Taylor v. Am. Employers' Ins. Co. of Boston
Decision Date | 13 August 1931 |
Docket Number | No. 3575.,3575. |
Citation | 35 N.M. 544,3 P.2d 76 |
Parties | TAYLORv.AMERICAN EMPLOYERS' INS. CO. OF BOSTON, MASS., et al. |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
Requirement that employee file compensation claim within 60 days held absolute limitation on right of action, not subject to waiver or estoppel .
The requirement of the New Mexico Workmen's Compensation Act, chapter 83, Laws 1917 (as amended) that the employee must file his claim for compensation in the office of the clerk of the district court not later than sixty days after the refusal or failure of the employer to pay the same, is a limitation on the right of action, which is wholly statutory, and not a mere limitation on the remedy, and is absolute and unconditional, and not subject to pleas of waiver or estoppel.
Appeal from District Court, Eddy County; Richardson, Judge.
Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Law by J. Will Taylor, opposed by the American Employers' Insurance Company of Boston, Mass., insurer, and another. From a judgment dismissing the claim, claimant appeals.
Affirmed, and cause remanded.
Requirement that employee file compensation claim within 60 days being absolute limitation on right of action, is not subject to waiver or estoppel. Comp.St.1929, §§ 156-105, 156-113.
James W. Stagner and Caswell S. Neal, both of Carlsbad, for appellant.
H. B. Hamilton, of El Paso, Tex., for appellees.
Under the Workmen's Compensation Law, appellant filed a claim for compensation for an injury suffered by him. A plea was filed by the appellee, insurer, wherein it was asserted that said claim was barred because filed too late. By amended petition and claim for compensation, and by way of avoidance of appellee's contention that the claim of appellant was barred, facts were alleged which we assume (though not deciding) withstand a demurrer presented thereto, to the effect that claimant was led by the representations of the appellee insurer to believe that payment of the claim was not refused, that it would be paid, and, relying upon such representations and belief, he did not file his claim within the time required by the statute.
To this amended claim, appellee insurer filed its plea in the form of a demurrer, contending: (1) That the claim for compensation of appellant was barred because not filed in time; (2) that the plea of avoidance did not state facts sufficient to toll the statute against the defendant insurer.
The matter was presented to the court upon the amended claim and the plea thereto, and the court sustained the plea, and, the appellant electing to stand, the court dismissed the claim of appellant.
Appellant states that the sole question on this appeal is whether or not matter alleged in avoidance of the bar stated facts sufficient to toll the statute requiring claim to be filed within the terms designated or to estop appellee from pleading such statute as a defense and to permit recovery, notwithstanding the failure of appellant to file his claim within the period mentioned in the Compensation Act.
This really involves two questions. It is conceded that, if the doctrine of waiver or estoppel may not be invoked in respect to the limitations of time for taking certain steps by the injured workman, then the decision in Caton v. Gilliland Oil Co., 33 N. M. 227, 264 P. 946, 947, is controlling. In that case we said:
This principle was adopted and the decision followed in Mumford v. State Highway Commission of N. M. et al. (N. M.) 1 P.(2d) 115, decided May 7, 1931. In neither of those cases was the question of waiver or estoppel alleged to be present.
Coming then to this question, we find courts of other jurisdictions announcing the doctrine of the Caton Case in the face of claims of waiver and estoppel. The Circuit Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit in Rogulj v. Alaska Gastineau Mining Co. (April 2, 1923) 288 F. 549, 550 said:
We will not undertake to comment on all of the cases cited. Some of them arose where claimant had failed to give the notice of the accident or injury as provided by the statute and some of them pertained to the failure of the claimant to file his claim or bring an action within the time provided by the statute.
Under our statute the consequences of a failure in either particular is the same. Section 13 of chapter 83, Laws 1917 ( ) provides: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Munro v. City of Albuquerque (two Cases).
...Compensation Act creates a new right and provides a remedy. The remedy has been held to be a part of the right. Taylor v. American Employers Insurance Co., 35 N.M. 544, 3 P.2d 76. Accordingly, we held in the Taylor case that the employer could not waive the time limit on filing claims nor c......
-
Munro v. City of Albuquerque
...creates a new right and provides a remedy. The remedy has been held to be a part of the right. Taylor v. American Employers Insurance Co., 35 N.M. 544, 3 P.2d 76. Accordingly, we held in the Taylor case that the employer could not waive the time limit on filing claims nor create estoppel by......
-
Schultz ex rel. Schultz v. Pojoaque Tribal Police Dep't
...predecessor in 1937 in response to a 1931 decision of this Court, Taylor v. American Employers’ Insurance Co. of Boston, Mass . 35 N.M. 544, 3 P.2d 76 (1931), superseded by statute as stated in Lucero v. White Auto Stores, Inc. , 60 N.M. 266, 268, 291 P.2d 308, 309 (1955) (recognizing that ......
-
State ex rel. Kermac Nuclear Fuels Corp. v. Larrazolo
...simply that if suit was not timely filed the claim, right and remedy were all barred. Also cited was Taylor v. American Employers' Ins. Co. of Boston, Mass., 35 N.M. 544, 3 P.2d 76, where a similar conclusion was reached. Maestas v. American Metal Co., 37 N.M. 203, 20 P.2d 924, also cited, ......