{ "id": 6142303, "name": "Clayton HAMILTON, Employee v. JEFFREY STONE COMPANY, Employer, and the TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO., Insurance Carrier", "name_abbreviation": "Hamilton v. Jeffrey Stone Co.", "decision_date": "1982-11-10", "docket_number": "CA 82-220", "first_page": "333", "last_page": "336", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "6 Ark. App. 333" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "641 S.W.2d 723" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "233 Ark. 67", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1691735 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/233/0067-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 Ark. App. 343", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6142596 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/2/0343-01" ] }, { "cite": "135 P.2d 89", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "year": 1943, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "17 Wash.2d 228", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wash. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2581335 ], "year": 1943, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wash-2d/17/0228-01" ] }, { "cite": "250 N.W.2d 249", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 10690827 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nw2d/250/0249-01" ] }, { "cite": "543 P.2d 1339", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "case_ids": [ 5292484 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mont/168/0463-01" ] }, { "cite": "267 Ark. 595", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1719881 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/267/0595-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 Ark. App. 332", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6142317 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "336" }, { "page": "232" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/2/0332-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 Ark. App. 128", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6138853 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "133" }, { "page": "949" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/2/0128-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 420, "char_count": 6417, "ocr_confidence": 0.828, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.8648384060219994e-07, "percentile": 0.9002017106016605 }, "sha256": "9096358dde8cc2c3e53a2501af9d8831e193d5f84fc3cb8341a2143aa5cfbda3", "simhash": "1:829649af1767d292", "word_count": 1019 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:52:26.378972+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Mayfield, C.J., and Cloninger, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "Clayton HAMILTON, Employee v. JEFFREY STONE COMPANY, Employer, and the TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO., Insurance Carrier" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Tom Glaze, Judge.\nThis is an appeal from a decision of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission that appellant\u2019s silicosis claim was barred by the statute of limitations.\nAppellant is a 62-year-old man who was employed by Jeffrey Stone Company from 1957 to 1969. His duties included working on a rock crusher, a machine which emits large amounts of silica dust which appellant inhaled daily for twelve years. In July, 1969, he was hospitalized for what was diagnosed at the time as tuberculosis. A doctor advised appellant not to return to his job because of his difficulties with breathing.\nAppellant began working as a guard with a security firm in January, 1970; he worked until December, 1977, when he had to stop working entirely because of problems with breathing and being shortwinded. In November, 1980, appellant\u2019s problem was diagnosed as silicosis. He filed his claim for permanent and total disability in December, 1980, contending the statute of limitations on silicosis did not begin to run until his condition was diagnosed. Respondent insurance company controverted the claim in its entirety, maintaining that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The statutes establish that silicosis claims must be filed within one year after disablement, and such disablement must occur within three years of the last injurious exposure to the hazards of silicosis. See Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 81-1314 (a) (7), 81-1318 (a) (2) (Repl. 1976). The Commission affirmed the Administrative Law Judge\u2019s decision that the claim was barred. On appeal, appellant argues the statutes of limitation pertaining to silicosis should be: (1) declared unconstitutional because they violate the Equal Protecton Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; but if constitutional, (2) interpreted to run from the date of discovery or the time at which the claimant knows or should reasonably be expected to know of his injury.\nBefore deciding the constitutional issue raised by the appellant, we must consider appellee\u2019s argument that constitutional questions cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. We have previously held that an issue will not be considered by this Court when presented for the first time on appeal. Dodson Creek, Inc. v. Fred Walton Realty Co., 2 Ark. App. 128, 133, 620 S.W.2d 947, 949 (1981). We have applied that rule with equal force to appeals from the Arkansas Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission. Ashcraft v. Quimby, 2 Ark. App. 332, 336, 621 S.W.2d 230, 232 (1981).\nUntil now, this Court has not been asked whether constitutional questions must first be presented at the Commission level. The general rule is that the constitutionality of a statute will not be considered if raised for the first time on appeal. See e.g., Sweeney v. Sweeney, 267 Ark. 595, 593 S.W.2d 21 (1980). This rule has also been followed by appellate courts in appeals from workers\u2019 compensation commissions and other administrative agencies. E.g., Lewis v. Anaconda Co., 543 P.2d 1339 (Mont. 1975); Benson v. North Dakota Workmen\u2019s Compensation Bureau, 250 N.W.2d 249 (N.D. 1977); and Unemployment Compensation Department v. Hunt, 17 Wash.2d 228, 135 P.2d 89 (1943); see also 3 A. Larson, The Law of Workmen\u2019s Compensation, \u00a7 78.12 (1976 & July, 1982 Supp.).\nEven though the Commission may not have the authority to declare statutes unconstitutional, we believe such issues should first be raised at the Administrative Law Judge or Commission level. Constitutional questions often require an exhaustive analysis which is best accomplished by an adversary proceeding. Obviously this can be done only at the hearing level. Requiring these constitutional issues to be considered by the Commission, we can be assured that such issues will be thoroughly developed before we are asked to rule on a statute\u2019s validity.\nIn Swafford v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2 Ark. App. 343, 621 S.W.2d 862 (1981), we were called on to decide the validity of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 81-1302 (m) after an Administrative Law Judge ruled it unconstitutional. The Commission took the position that it could not declare a legislative act unconstitutional because that was within the court\u2019s jurisdiction. Since the constitutional issue was raised at the administrative hearing level, we held \u00a7 81-1302 (m) unconstitutional without addressing whether the issue was required to be raised below before we reviewed it.\nIn the instant case, appellant failed to properly raise before the Commission the issue concerning the constitutionality of \u00a7\u00a7 81-1314 (a) (7) and 81-1318 (a) (2). Because we have never held, until now, that such issues must be raised first at the Commission level, we believe it would be unfair not to remand this cause in order to allow the appellant the opportunity to present and argue his constitutional issue. We especially believe such action is warranted because the Commission only recently expressed the opinion that it had no authority to consider constitutional issues.\nBefore remanding, we reject appellant\u2019s other contention that the statutes of limitation pertaining to silicosis run from the date of discovery or when the claimant knows or should reasonably be expected to know his injury. Our Supreme Court has held that in silicosis cases the statute commences to run at the time of disablement and not at the time the claimant learns he is suffering from the disease and that disablement does not occur until the employee is unable to work and earn his usual wages. Quality Excelsior Coal Co. v. Smith, 233 Ark. 67, 342 S.W.2d 480 (1961).\nTherefore, we affirm the Commission\u2019s finding that appellant\u2019s claim was barred under \u00a7\u00a7 81-1314 (a) (7) and 81-1318 (a) (2), assuming such provisions to be constitutional. We otherwise remand this case for the Commission\u2019s consideration of the parties\u2019 respective presentations and arguments relative to the constitutionality of the foregoing statutory provisions.\nAffirmed and remanded.\nMayfield, C.J., and Cloninger, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Tom Glaze, Judge." }, { "text": "Melvin Mayfield, Chief Judge,\nconcurring. I concur in the remand of this case but would remand both issues to the Commission.", "type": "concurrence", "author": "Melvin Mayfield, Chief Judge," } ], "attorneys": [ "McMath, Leatherman &\u25a0 Vehik, P.A., by: Art Anderson, for appellant.", "Michael E. Ryburn, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Clayton HAMILTON, Employee v. JEFFREY STONE COMPANY, Employer, and the TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO., Insurance Carrier\nCA 82-220\n641 S.W.2d 723\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered November 10, 1982\nMcMath, Leatherman &\u25a0 Vehik, P.A., by: Art Anderson, for appellant.\nMichael E. Ryburn, for appellees." }, "file_name": "0333-01", "first_page_order": 361, "last_page_order": 364 }