Taylor v. Armour & Co.

• Decision Date: 23 January 1960
• Docket Number: No. 41599,41599
• Citation: 348 P.2d 632,186 Kan. 51
• Parties: Willie Robert TAYLOR, Appellee, v. ARMOUR AND COMPANY, Appellant.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 632

348 P.2d 632

186 Kan. 51

Willie Robert TAYLOR, Appellee, v. ARMOUR AND COMPANY, Appellant.

No. 41599.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Jan. 23, 1960.

Syllabus by the Court

1. A claim filed under G.S.1957 Supp. 44-520a of the workmen's compensation act is sufficient, even though the date of the alleged accident specified therein is indefinite, when the evidence in the case shows that the claim was properly filed and served upon the employer within the limitation specified in the statute.

2. The workmen's compensation act is to be liberally construed in favor of the workman with the view of effecting its purpose (Ellis v. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co., 159 Kan. 213, 152 P.2d 860, 155 A.L.R. 546).

Thomas M. Van Cleave, Jr., Kansas City, argued the cause, and Thomas M. Van Cleave, Willard L. Phillips and P. B. McAnany, Kansas City, were with him on the briefs, for appellant.

J. W. Mahoney, Kansas City, argued the cause, and John K. Dear, David W. Carson and Ernest N. Yarnevich, Kansas City, were with him on the briefs, for appellee.

JACKSON, Justice.

The appellee brought a workmen's compensation claim against his employer, the appellant. The commissioner, after a hearing, made an award in claimant's favor which was approved by the district court on appeal.

In the appeal to this court, appellant, recognizing the limited scope of our jurisdiction in workmen's compensation cases, has only attempted to question the propriety of one phase of the case. While the question is argued under three headings in the employer's brief, the question is really whether the workman's claim filed under G.S.1957 Supp. 44-520a was sufficient to enable the workman to maintain this proceeding.

The employer quite rightly does not argue that there was not sufficient, competent evidence to support the following summary of the evidence as to the accident made by the workmen's compensation commissioner:

'The claimant testified that he was employed by the respondent as a common laborer and his specific job was lugging beef; that the beef was lugged by carrying it and it weighed from 150 to 300 pounds; that while lugging beef on or about November 19, 1956, he stepped on a piece of fat laying on a step causing him to slip and hurt his right knee; that the next day he told his foreman about hurting his knee and was sent to the company's doctor, Dr. Rieke, who treated him for two or three weeks; that Dr. Rieke was not helping him any and he went to Dr. Wall for further treatment. The claimant further testified that he had received an injury to the knee on August 19, 1954, but had completely recovered from that injury prior to this subsequent injury of November, 1956. The claimant stated that he had lost several days off and on from this injury and was off work continuously from December 26, 1956 to January 14, 1957, while under treatment with Dr. Wall.' (Italics supplied.)

The claim filed under section 44-520a in this case was typed on a printed form, and the only possible fault therein was that in the blank asking for the date of the accident there appeared the following words: 'Approx. one year ago'.

At the hearing, the claimant asked leave to amend the claim by inserting the date of the accident as November 19, 1956. The commissioner made no ruling on the proffered motion to amend the claim but only found that the accident occurred on November 19, 1956, in accord with the testimony of claimant. The district court on appeal found this to be in accord with the evidence and formally allowed the claim to be amended.

The employer argues that under the written claim outlined above and which was filed with the commissioner on December 28, 1956, and served on the employer by registered mail January 5, 1957, more than 180 days had expired before the making of the claim. The employer argues that no amendment could be made as to the date of the accident to show that the claim was filed within proper time. It is to be noted, however, that employer does not raise any question about the notice as required in G.S.1949, 44-520, where it is provided 'time and place' of the accident are to be given. Under the evidence, the finding that the accident occurred on November 19, 1956 and that employer had notice thereof, could not be disputed in this court.

Attention is directed to the fact that in no place in section 44-520a is it required that the date of the accident be stated. This court has...