Wallace v. Campbell Limestone Co.

• Decision Date: 29 October 1941
• Docket Number: 15317.
• Parties: WALLACE v. CAMPBELL LIMESTONE CO. et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

17 S.E.2d 309

198 S.C. 196

WALLACE v. CAMPBELL LIMESTONE CO. et al.

No. 15317.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

October 29, 1941

Rehearing Denied Nov. 17, 1941.

Osborne Butler & Moore, of Spartanburg, for appellants.

Wolfe & Fort, of Gaffney, for respondent.

STUKES Justice.

The respondent was injured in the course of his employment in 1936 and was awarded workmen's compensation including his medical and hospital expenses, temporary total disability benefits, and for specific loss of twenty per cent of the use of his left leg (permanent partial disability), five dollars per week for thirty-five weeks, the last payment thereof having been made on June 7, 1937. Upon a letter dated June 15, 1940, from his counsel to the Industrial Commission claiming for the first time the right to an additional award for disfigurement, hearing was had and the Hearing Commissioner and the Commission, upon review, denied further compensation upon the ground that such was barred by the terms of Section 24, 39 St. at Large, p. 1244, "and

elsewhere of the Act." Respondent had executed about June 7, 1937, witnessed by his attorney, a document entitled "Final Compensation Settlement Receipt," also called in the findings of the Commissioner a "Final Receipt."

Upon appeal to the Circuit Court, the Commission's action was reversed and the case was remanded for the purpose of an additional award for serious bodily disfigurement. The appeal to this court is upon very numerous exceptions which raise the question, inter multa alia, the answer to which will control the decision, to wit, Can the Commission make an award in this case for disfigurement after so long a lapse of time?

The respondent sets forth in argument, too narrowly we think, the following as the issue to be determined: "Must the claimant's application for an award for serious bodily disfigurement under the proviso of Section 31, sub-section (t), be denied for the reason that said application was not made till after a year following the date of the accident?"

The time elements involved are well stated in the findings of the Hearing Commissioner, affirmed on appeal by the Commission as follows: "By the evidence it is very plain that more than three years had elapsed from the Final Compensation Settlement Receipt before any claim was made by the plaintiff or his counsel, making a total of four years, one month and twenty-four days from the date of injury."

We deal first with the separate appeal of the appellants from the order of the trial judge settling the transcript of record for the main appeal. The respondent proposed a substituted "statement" which was allowed by the court in lieu of the statement proffered by the appellants. There are several exceptions and objections to the statement incorporated in the transcript by the order of the court, but the most serious is that the following quoted statement at the end is not warranted by the record: "The sole issue involved is whether or not an award for serious bodily disfigurement, in the circumstances set out in the record, is barred under Section 24(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act."

The contents of the "statement" in a transcript of record are specified in Section 3 of Rule 4 of this court. It is not contemplated that they shall include a disputed statement of the issues involved. The record discloses that at the hearings the appellants had in haec verbis pleaded the "Statute of Limitations," and we do not think anything which counsel for appellants did or said can be properly held to confine their contention to Section 24(a) of the Act.

It appears that no formal claim for benefits in conformity with this section was filed with the Commission, but the latter took jurisdiction within the stipulated period and made the above-mentioned award which was paid, under which circumstances it is unimportant whether a formal claim was filed if the parties appeared or were duly represented by counsel and made no point of it. King v. Wesner, 198 S.C. 49, 16 S.E.2d 289.

It should be remembered in the first place that proceedings before the Commission may be summary and informal. King v Wesner, supra. In the second place the present appellants were respondents before the Commission, on review of the findings of the Hearing Commissioner, and before the Circuit Court on appeal by claimant from the findings of the Commission. And it was not necessary for the present appellants to submit additional sustaining grounds for the former decisions favorable to them. Phillips v Western Union Telegraph Co., 194 S.C. 317, 9 S.E.2d 736, 129 A.L.R. 397. In the third place, it is repeated that the holding of the Commission that the claim for disfigurement is barred was based upon the terms of the act generally, "Section 24 and elsewhere." We have not attempted to state these considerations in the order of their importance; indeed we think that in this case any one of them is sufficient to entitle appellants to the benefit of any limitations occurring in the act and they are not limited in their position to Section 24.

For the foregoing reasons appellants' exceptions to the order settling the transcript are sustained. It may be said that full consideration has been given the entire record and the main appeal will be disposed of thereon.

The "Final Compensation Settlement Receipt" referred to above, executed by the claimant and witnessed by his counsel about June 7, 1937, recites that it was "in full settlement and satisfaction of all claims for compensation subject to review as provided by law, on account of injuries suffered *** about the 22nd day of April, 1936, while in the employ of Campbell Limestone...