{ "id": 8723029, "name": "Donaldson v. Calvert-McBride Printing Company", "name_abbreviation": "Donaldson v. Calvert-McBride Printing Co.", "decision_date": "1950-07-03", "docket_number": "4-9244", "first_page": "625", "last_page": "632", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "217 Ark. 625" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "232 S.W.2d 651" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "108 A. L. R. 304", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "62 Pac. 2d 533", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "50 Wyo. 508", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wyo.", "case_ids": [ 8513574 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wyo/50/0508-01" ] }, { "cite": "210 Ark. 141", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8718466 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/210/0141-01" ] }, { "cite": "208 Ark. 727", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1478673 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/208/0727-01" ] }, { "cite": "214 Ark. 416", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8721853 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/214/0416-01" ] }, { "cite": "212 Ark. 23", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1470226 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/212/0023-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 584, "char_count": 12597, "ocr_confidence": 0.49, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.830922786380565e-07, "percentile": 0.9724588190276731 }, "sha256": "3d197e188c30653f061a5158b4be90ab6105f5e8f421038f9b0731ad3022c580", "simhash": "1:c7614f7297a2c5d7", "word_count": 2213 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:48:24.265381+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Donaldson v. Calvert-McBride Printing Company." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Holt, J.\nThis appeal is from a judgment of the Sebastian Circuit Court affirming the action of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Commission, which denied appellant\u2019s claim for an alleged compensable injury.\nThe facts were undisputed: \u201cIt was stipulated that the claimant received an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment as a result of said injury the claimant was off work from March 10, 1947, to March 17, 1947, at which tim\u00e9 he returned to work for this respondent employer. The claimant was paid no compensation during this period for the reason that he was not off work long enough to entitle him to compensation under the provisions of the Act, but medical expense in the amount of $25 was paid by the respondents; that the employer filed his Form A-8, being the Employer\u2019s First Notice of Injury, with the Commission on March 13, 1947.\n\u2018 \u2018 The case was first set for hearing before Commissioner Caperton on June 22, 1949, at which time the respondents specifically pleaded the Statute of Limitations in bar of any claim for compensation. The claimant being without counsel, the Commissioner continued the case until he could secure the services of an attorney.\n\u201cThe claimant testified that on Friday, March 7. 1947, he struck his coccyx, or lower end of his spine, on a part of the press where he was working; that although it hurt pretty badly he continued to work until Saturday noon, which was the end of the regular work week, and that he also worked the following Monday, but on Tuesday, lie went to Dr. Hugh Johnson, who in turn sent him to Dr. Brooksher for an X-ray; that Dr. Johnson sent him home, where he remained about one week, and then returned to his regular work as a pressman; that at that time he was being paid $52.20 per week, and that after returning to work in March, 1947, he worked most of the time for the next two years; that he first knew that he had fractured his coccyx two or three weeks after March 7, 1947; that from March, 1947, to December 31, 1948, he was off from work on ten or twelve different occasions, a week or so at a time, because his back was hurting him; that he was paid straight tim\u00e9 by his employer for any time he lost from .work from March, 1947, to October, 1948; that in October, 1948, he went to the Veterans\u2019 Administration Hospital, at Fayetteville; and about that time Dr. Johnson told him he could not do any heavy lifting, which he had to do in his job as a pressman; that he talked to his employer in October, 1948, and they gave him a job as outside salesman at $48 per week. At this time it appears that the claimant\u2019s wages, which were $52.20 per week at the time of his injury, had been increased to where he was earning $63.60 per week. However, he took the position as an outside salesman at $48 per week, and since that time his salary as such has been raised to $56.40 per week; that on March 21, 1949, he was operated on at the Veterans\u2019 Administration Hospital, in Fayetteville, and three joints of his coccyx were removed; that his condition is worse since his operation and the end of his spine pains him constantly; that there was no doubt in his mind about his injury as he was informed by Dr. Hugh Johnson that he had a fracture of his coccyx, and he had had trouble all along for a period of two years or so; that the reason he did not file a claim for compensation was that he did not know there was any time limitation for the filing of a claim; that he had had some trouble with his kidneys and he thought that they might have something to do with his condition also. It appears that the first claim for compensation filed by this claimant was a letter to the Commission dated May 23, 1949, which was received by the Commission on May 24,1949, in which the claimant set out the injury of March 7, 1947, and his operation on March 21, 1949.\u201d\nThe Commission denied\u2019 appellant\u2019s claim on the ground that it was barred since it was not \u201cfiled within one year after the time of the injury\u201d as provided by \u00a7 18 (a) of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Law of 1939, \u00a7 81-1318, Ark. Stats. 1947.\nThe Commission held that \u201cthe time of injury\u201d was March 7, 1947, and since appellant did not file his claim until in May, 1949, he was too late.\nAs indicated, the Circuit Court, on appeal, affirmed.\nWas the claim barred? The question presented appears not to have been determined by this court.\nSection 18 (a) of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Law, in effect March 7, 1947, provided: \u201cThe right of compensation for disability under this act shall be barred unless a claim therefor is filed within one (1) year after the time of the injury.\u201d\nAppellant earnestly contends that \u201cno injury within the meaning of the Law and no disability occurred until October, 1948, and that the first time appellant suffered a loss in earnings because of his injury is the time of his \u2018injury\u2019 within the meaning of the Law then in effect,\u201d and that an \u201cinjury\u201d did not occur until it became a compensable injury in October, 1948.\nAppellees insist that under the plain terms of the act, appellant was barred because he failed to file his claim within one year limitation \u201cafter the time of the injury\u201d and that this requirement was mandatory and jurisdictional.\nOur rule is well settled that we must give a liberal construction to the provisions of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Law, to effectuate its humane purposes, and resolve any doubt in favor of the claimant. To this end, we should not, in administering the act, defeat its purpose by over emphasis on technicalities, by putting form above substance. The act itself provides that in a proceeding to enforce a claim \u201cthere shall be a prima facie presumption * * * that the claim comes within the provisions of this act.\u201d Batesville White Lime Company v. Bell, 212 Ark. 23, 205 S. W, 2d 31.\nTlie general rule, applicable liere, is stated in 71 C. Jp. 966, \u00a7 734, as follows: \u201cUnless otherwise provided by the statute, tlie date of the injury and the date of tlie accident for tlie purpose of bringing suit are not necessarily the same. By injury is meant the state of facts which first entitles claimant to compensation, so that if the injury does not develop until after the accident, the cause of action arises when the injury develops or becomes apparent and not at the time of the accident, the latter having been held to be the rule in regard to latent injuries even where the statute requires the proceedings to be instituted within a specified time after the accident,\u201d and the text writer in 58 Am. Jur., p. 846, \u00a7 409, announces the rule:\n\u201cThe rule in most jurisdictions is that the period within which a proceeding for the recovery of compensation may be instituted, or within which an application or claim may be filed, commences to run when the injury accrues, or when the disabling consequences of the accident or injury become apparent or discoverable, rather than at or from the time of the happening of the accident from which the injury results.; but in some jurisdictions the period of limitations is computed from the time of the occurrence of the accident.\u201d\nAppellant filed claim for compensation May 24,1949, within less than a year from October, 1948, setting out the injury of March 7, 1947, and the operation of March 21, 1949.\nAs indicated, appellant argues that an injury does not occur until it becomes a compensable injury and that \u201ctime of the injury,\u201d as used in the act, means a com-pensable injury and the one year limitation, therefore, must be reckoned from October, 1948, when .appellant\u2019s' injury became compensable.\nAppellees contend that \u201cthe one year limitation began to run from the date of the accident, March 7,1947, \u2019 \u2019 and that \u201che (appellant) then had a compensable injury\u201d on that date. In other words, appellees, in effect,- argue that \u201ctime of the injury\u201d as provided in the act is synonymous with \u201ctime of accident.\u201d We think there is a clear distinction between an accident and an injury. The injury is the result of the accident. An accident often, at the time of its happening, produces a compensable injury, but this is not always true.\nFor example, one of the distinguishing features between the present case and that of Sanderson & Porter v. Crow, 214 Ark. 416, 216 S. W. 2d 796, (strongly relied upon by appellees) is that in the Crow case, on the facts, a compensable injury resulted on the date of the accident. Here, appellant\u2019s injury was not compensable until he suffered a loss in earnings in October, 1948. Such was the effect of our holding in Sallee Bros. v. Thompson, 208 Ark. 727, 187 S. W. 2d 956.\n\" 'Disability,\u2019 as defined in the statute, 'means incapacity because of the injury to earn in the same or any other employment the wages which the employee was receiving at the time of the injury.\u2019 Section 2 (e) of Act 319 of 1939.\u201d Conatser v. D. W. Hoskins Truck Service, 210 Ark. 141, 194 S. W. 2d 680.\nIn a well reasoned case by the Wyoming Supremo Court, Baldwin v. Scullion, 50 Wyo. 508, 62 Pac. 2d 533, 108 A. L. R. 304, in which many authorities are reviewed, that court construed the limitation section of their Workmen\u2019s Compensation Law, which provided \"no * * * award for compensation shall be made unless, * * * claim * * * is filed, by the injured workman * # * within five months after the date on which the injury occurred.\u201d It will be observed that this act is similar, in effect, to our own \u00a7 81-1318 above. The court there said: \"The term 'injury\u2019 from the date of whose occurrence the mandatory time limitation imposed upon the employee to file his claim for compensation commences to run, means a com-pensable injury under the law. It is not used in the sense of 'accident.\u2019 \u201d\nIt would have been an easy matter for our lawmakers, had they intended that a claim must be filed within one year from the date of the accident, to have said so by using the word \"accident\u201d rather than the word \u201cinjury.\u201d Of significance is the fact that in 1948 (1949 Cumulative Pocket Supplement, Ark. Stats.) the above \u00a7 81-1318 was amended so that the time for filing claims \u2022was changed to two years from the date of the accident, not the date of the injury. Section 81-1318 (a) now reads: \u201cTime for Filing. (1) A claim for compensation for disability on account of an injury (other than an occupational disease and occupational infection) shall be barred unless filed with the Commission within two (2) years from the date of the accident.\u201d\nThere would appear to be no need for this change had the Legislature considered the two words \u201caccident\u201d and \u201cinjury\u201d to be synonymous. We hold, therefore, that \u201ctime of injury\u201d used in the act before amendment, as indicated, means a compensable injury, and since appellant filed his claim within one year from October, 1948, when his injury became compensable, it was filed in time.\nFinally, appellees say: \u201cMedical expense of $25 was paid by respondents. This constituted 'compensation\u2019 as defined in \u00a7 2 (i), 81-1302 (i). The employer was required to furnish it promptly (\u00a7 81-1311). Claimant accepted it, so he was paid \u2018compensation\u2019 in this manner. But he still failed to file claim for 2 years, 3 months and 17 days and is barred.\u201d\nWe think this contention without merit for the reason that \u00a7 81-1318 (a) above, refers to \u201ctime of injury,\u201d which we hold to mean time of compensable injury (October, 1948). This section also provides \u201cexcept that if payment of compensation has been made in any case on account of such injury (that is compensable injury) * * * a claim may be filed within one year after the date of the last payment.\u201d\nIt is undisputed that appellant received his injury on March 7, 1947, \u201cwas off work from March 10, 1947, to March 17, 1947, \u2019 \u2019 that he was paid no compensation during this period for the reason that he was not off woi'k long enough to entitle him to compensation under the provisions of the act ( 81-1310), but medical expenses in the amount of $25 were paid by the appellees for this period.\nObviously, this medical payment was not, and could not have been, a \u201cpayment of compensation * * * on account of such injury (compensable injury)\u201d of October, 1948.\nAccordingly, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to the Circuit Court to remand the cause to the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Commission Avith directions to allow appellant\u2019s claim for compensation and determine the amount thereof.", "type": "majority", "author": "Holt, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Harper, Harper & Young, for appellant.", "Warner -& Warner, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Donaldson v. Calvert-McBride Printing Company.\n4-9244\n232 S. W. 2d 651\nOpinion delivered July 3, 1950.\nRehearing denied October 9, 1950.\nHarper, Harper & Young, for appellant.\nWarner -& Warner, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0625-01", "first_page_order": 649, "last_page_order": 656 }