Zietko v. Jacques Wolf Co. C. P. No. A701.

Decision Date25 June 1945
Docket NumberC.P. 4701
PartiesZIETKO v. JACQUES WOLF CO. et al. C. P. No. A701.
CourtNew Jersey Department of Labor-Workmen's Compensation Bureau

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Elizabeth Zietko claimant, to recover compensation for death of her son, opposed by Jacques Wolf Company, employer, and New Jersey Manufacturer's Casualty Insurance Company, insurance carrier. On motion to dismiss petition.

Motion denied.

See also Zietko v. New Jersey Manufacturers Casualty Ins. Co., 132 N.J.L. 206, 39 A.2d 417.

Nathan Rabinowitz and Isadore Rabinowitz, both of Paterson, for petitioner.

George E. Meredith, of Trenton, for respondent.

UMBERGER, Deputy Commissioner.

In this matter petition was filed by petitioner seeking compensation for the death of her son, which death took place on November 16, 1939, and, it is said, was by accident arising out of and in course of said decedent's employment with respondent. The petition herein was filed May 2, 1945, and respondent in lieu of usual answer to the same has made motion for dismissal on six counts, only one of which, namely the first, is perhaps in point with the present proceedings and on this count respondent requests dismissal on the grounds the petition was filed after the two year limitation for filing same had expired.

A petition was filed once before in this case on April 18, 1940 which was subsequently dismissed, on proper notice, for lack of prosecution by this Bureau on February 16, 1943. An appeal was taken from this order by petitioner to the Common Pleas Court but the same on March 2, 1945, was dismissed without prejudice. There was also an action in the matter brought in the Supreme Court on the basis of an alleged contract to pay compensation made between the parties but which action was dismissed in that Court on the ground that all original jurisdiction in the matter was in the Compensation Bureau.

In the present petition petitioner asks for a hearing on the merits; an award for seven checks issued by respondent in payment of some installments of compensation under said agreement; or an amount stipulated for in said agreement.

This agreement it is alleged was entered into by the parties on a form provided and prescribed by the Bureau and known as Form No. 4. In this form respondent undertook to pay to petitioner 300 weeks compensation at $2.28 per week totalling $684 and in addition $150 statutory funeral allowance. This agreement was made on January 27, 1940, and was signed by the employer's insurance carrier, named as one of respondents herein, New Jersey Manufacturer's Casualty Insurance Co., but not by petitioner. On January 29, 1940, there was issued and filed by the New Jersey Department of Labor its form No. 6, signed by Daniel A. Spair, Secretary of Workmen's Compensation Bureau approving said agreement. It is alleged petitioner was advised by letter on January 24, 1940, by said insurance carrier that it would not be necessary for her to sign any forms at this time.

Respondent's contention that the Bureau is without present jurisdiction in the matter because of the appeal by petitioner from its previous order dismissing the original petition to the Common Pleas is without merit...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Lynch v. City of Newark
    • United States
    • New Jersey County Court
    • February 7, 1957
    ...any basic concept of fairness--let alone of liberal statutory construction, and in effect was struck down in Zietko v. Jacques Wolf Co., 23 N.J.Misc. 354, 43 A.2d 881 (W.C.B.1945), wherein it was held that a dismissal of a previous claim petition for lack of prosecution was not a bar to a s......
  • Davis v. State
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • April 15, 1957
    ...as soon as there is any failure to make a payment due under the agreement. To the extent that the decision in Zietko v. Jacques Wolf Co., 23 N.J.Misc. 354, 43 A.2d 881 (W.C.B.1945), may be regarded as holding that the running of limitations is necessarily suspended during the entire period ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT