Texas Employers' Insurance Association v. Hudgins

• Decision Date: 18 October 1956
• Docket Number: No. 3409,3409
• Citation: Texas Employers' Insurance Association v. Hudgins, 294 S.W.2d 446 (Tex. Ct. App. 1956)
• Parties: TEXAS EMPLOYERS' INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. John R. HUDGINS, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Civil Court of Appeals

Page 446

294 S.W.2d 446

TEXAS EMPLOYERS' INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. John R. HUDGINS, Appellee.

No. 3409.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Waco.

Oct. 18, 1956.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 1, 1956.

Lewright, Dyer & Redford, James W. Wray, Jr., Corpus Christi, for appellant.

Butler, Williams, Stone & Cook, Robstown, for appellee.

HALE, Justice.

This is a workmen's compensation case. Upon the special issue verdict of a jury, judgment was rendered in favor of appellee, the injured workman, for the sum of $6,546.03, on account of incapacity following an unsuccessful operation for a double hernia. Appellant, the insurer, says the judgment should be reversed solely because of alleged errors referrable to the question as to whether good cause existed for the failure of appellee to file his claim for compensation with the Industrial Accident Board within six months after his injury. A full statement from the record is necessary to a correct understanding of the contentions urged by the respective parties with reference to the general issue presented for determination.

Appellee was injured on August 13, 1954. His claim for compensation was filed with the Industrial Accident Board on March 1, 1955. In his trial petition, he alleged that 'good cause exists for plaintiff's failure to file his claim within six (6) months from the date of injury, in that an agent for defendant filled out certain papers for plaintiff and assured him that he would send plaintiff's claim in to the Industrial Accident Board, and that plaintiff relied upon such representations of defendant's agent, and thought that his claim had been sent in, and that immediately after finding out that the claim had not been sent in by defendant's agent and employee, plaintiff filed his claim before the Industrial Accident Board.' Appellant did not object or except to appellee's allegations of good cause, but denied under oath that appellee filed his claim within six months and denied that good cause existed for his failure to so file the same.

The undisputed evidence relating to the question of good cause for the failure of appellee to file his claim for compensation within six months after his injury shows that appellee had numerous conversations with appellant's claim adjuster, Robert W. Brayton, at various times, on approximately fifteen separate occasions between August 13, 1954 and March 1, 1955. Some of these conversations were at appellant's office in Corpus Christi and others were had over the telephone. There is a dispute in the evidence as to how many different written statements appellee made to the adjuster, but the evidence is undisputed that appellee and the adjuster did discuss settlement of the claim at various times.

Appellee testified in effect that shortly after he was injured, he signed a written statement concerning the injury for one of appellant's adjusters; that again in January, 1955, he met with appellant's adjuster, Brayton, at appellant's office in Corpus Christi, at which time he signed an additional two page statement for Mr. Brayton; that he was again contracted at a later date by adjuster Brayton, who took another written statement from him concerning his claim. Appellee further testified in part concerning his conversation with adjuster Brayton in January, as follows: 'I made a complete statement as to how the accident happened and that date, and the witnesses, and he said 'we will send this into the Board.' I was aware of the fact that it had been filed.' Adjuster Brayton testified that he had numerous telephone conversations with appellee, probably fifteen in number, and that he took two written statements from appellee, but he denied that he had ever told appellee that he or the insurance company would file appellee's claim for compensation with the Industrial Accident Board.

In his charge to the jury, the trial court submitted three special issues relating to the question of good cause, as follows:

'Special Issue No. 25: Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff believed, until immediately preceding the time that his claim was filed, that an adjuster in the employ of the defendant had filed his claim? If you have answered the foregoing question 'Yes', and only if you have so answered the same, than answer the following question.'

'Special Issue No. 26: Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence, if any, that such belief prevented him from filing his claim up to and until the time it was actually filed? If you have answered the foregoing question 'Yes', and only if you have so answered the same, then answer the following question.'

'Special Issue No. 27: Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence, if any, that a reasonably prudent person would, for such reason, delay the filing of his claim for such length of time?'

Before the Court's charge was submitted to the jury, appellant timely objected to that portion of the Court's charge relating to the general question of good cause, in the following language:

'Defendant objects and excepts to Special Issues Nos. 25, 26 and 27 for the reason that:

'(1) Such there issues, if answered in the affirmative, would not justify a finding of good cause as a matter of law, and because such Special Issues 25, 26 and 27 are not ultimate and controlling issues, as made by the pleadings and by the evidence.

'(2) The defendant objects and excepts to Special Issues Nos. 25, 26 and 27, because such three issues do not constitute a finding of fact upon all the issues pleaded and tendered by the proof, and do not constitute findings upon ultimate and controlling issues in regard to good cause for failure to file a claim for compensation within six months, as such issue is drawn by the pleadings and tendered by the evidence.'

Upon the presentation of the foregoing objections to the Court's charge, the Court stated that he would submit for the jury's determination an additional issue, to be numbered Special Issue No. 28, conditioned on an affirmative answer of the jury to Special Issues Nos. 25, 26 and 27, as follows: 'Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff had good cause, for such reasons, if any, for failure to file his claim for compensation within six months from the date of injury?' Appellant then objected to the submission of the additional issue for the reason that the same constituted a general charge and for the additional reason that 'good cause is a matter of law and not a matter of fact.' The Court thereupon sustained the latter objection of appellant and stated as follows: 'Let the record show that in attempting to cure objections to Special Issues 25, 26 and 27, the Court propounded and submitted No. 28 and gave both counsel a copy of the issue, and that thereafter the defendant objected in his objections because the same constituted a general charge and the Court then, in view of the objection, sustained the objection to No. 28 and deleted it from the Court's charge.' Appellant again objected to Special Issues Nos. 25, 26 and 27 because 'the same is a general charge and the defendant requests the Court to submit all ultimate and controlling issues with regard to 'good cause".

The jury answered each of the three special issues submitted to them relating to good cause in the affirmative. Appellant duly filed its motion to disregard the jury's answers to such issues and to render judgment in its favor non obstante veredicto, for the reason that the facts found by the jury in answer to such special issues, as a matter of law, did not establish good cause for appellee's failure to file his claim for compensation within six months after his injury. Appellant's motion for judgment was overruled and judgment rendered in accordance with the verdict, for appellee.

By the five points upon which its appeal is predicated, appellant says the terial court erred (1) 'in failing to submit to the jury all disputed ultimate and controlling issues on the question of plaintiff's good cause for failure to file his claim for compensation within the six (6) months after his injury as such good cause was pleaded by the plaintiff'; (2) 'in failing to submit for the jury's determination an issue on whether the defendant's agent, Robert W. Brayton, represented to the plaintiff that the defendant would file with the Industrial Accident Board a claim for compensation in behalf of the plaintiff, said issue being raised by the pleadings and placed in dispute by the evidence'; (3) 'in entering judgment for the plaintiff since the findings of the jury do not establish good cause for the failure of the plaintiff to file a claim for compensation within six (6) months after his...