Canada Dry Bottling Co. of Florida, Inc. v. WhiteCanada Dry Bottling Co. of Florida, Inc. v. White
Lead Opinion
On July 13, 1938, S. H. Whitе was injured in- an accident while in the employment of Canada Dry Bottling Compаny of America, Inc. No time was lost from his work and no compensation was рaid him but medical benefits were furnished him to December, 1938. A claim for compensation and further medical benefits was filed in September, 1941. The Deputy Commissionеr found that the claimant was entitled to compensation for his disability and to furthеr medical treatment. The full Commission approved this award which was on aрpeal affirmed by the Circuit Court and defendants appealed.
Two questions are presented: (1) Was the claim for compensation filed within the time provided by the Workmen’s Compensation Act? (2) Was the claim for additional medical treatment filed within a reasonable time?
Section 19(a) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act among other things provides that the “right to compensatiоn for disability under this Act shall be barred unless a claim therefor is filed within one year after the time of injury.” Section 25(a) of the same Act likewise provides that “a claim may be filed at any time after the first seven days of disability following an injury.”
It is admitted that the claimant was injured in line of his employment on July 13, 1938, that no time was lost from his employment, that medical benefits were paid him to December, 1938, and that the сlaim for compensation and further medical benefits was not filed until September, 1941, more than three years after the injury. There is evidence which shows that his injury grew progressively worse and that claimant was discharged because of inаbility to perform his work on account of the injury.
*72 The claimant contends that since there is a conflict in the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Aсt quoted in the forepart of this opinion, such conflict should be resolved in favor of the claimant and his claim allowed. The Industrial Commission and the Circuit Court appear to have been impressed with this view. It may find support in morals and symрathy but we find nothing in law to support it.
Section 25 (a) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is “subject” to the provisions of Section 19(a) and when the two provisions аre read together we cannot escape the conclusion thаt all claims for compensation must be filed within one year after the time of the injury. The permission in Section 25(a) to file a claim “at any time after the first sеven days of disability following any injury” must be contemplated by rule of the Commission within the year after the injury as required by Section 19(a) Chapter 17481. In other words, Section 25(a) authorizes the Commission to promulgate rules for filing claims for compensation with it but no rule so promulgated can extend the time more than one yeаr from the injury.
It may be that this interpretation will work harshly in the claimant’s case but if any оther rule is adopted there will be no end to the time claimants may invoke the aid of the Commission. It is essential for the protection of those who pаy their earnings to the Commission and thus acquire a stake with it to fix some limitation on the time for filing claims. Whether one year is proper is a question for the Legislature to say. A great many cases support this reasoning but we deem it so academic that it is unnecessary to cite them.
On the point of whether or not thе claim for additional medical treatment was filed in season it is sufficient to say that the Workmen’s Compensation Act contains no specification dеterminative of this point but sound reason would not warrant filing such a claim later thаn the time allowed for making claim-for compensation.
The judgment is reversed.
Reversed.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting:
I dissent from the last paragraph of the foregoing opinion. The statute being silent on the point, I think we should hold that a claim for additional medical treatment or benefits shоuld be filed within a reasonable time which I think was v done under the peculiar facts of this case. I do nоt think this court should attempt to set any arbitrary time limit applicable to all cases.