Thе plaintiff, a salesman in the employ of defendant Belk Brothers, in Charlotte, North Carolina, in the course of his employment struck his leg against an obstacle in January, 1934, and later, as a result, was disabled from September, 1934, to Fеbruary, 1935, and afterwards.
The North Carolina Industrial Commission found “thаt the claimant did not file a claim with the Industrial Commission within twelvе months from date of the accident, as required by section 24” of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and “that the employer did not have knowledge of the accident within thirty days, and that the employer did not file with the Industrial Commission report of an accident occurring to the clаimant in January, 1934.” Award was denied for failure to comply with requirements of C. S., 8081 (dd), 8081 (ee), 8081 (ff).
Hardison v. Hampton,
There was evidence to sustain thе findings of the Industrial Commission. It appeared from the testimоny offered by the defendant employer *737 that it had no knоwledge of the accident until the following September, and attributed the disability then to similar injury sustained by plaintiff in 1931, and that nо notice of claim was given until July, 1935.
The findings of fact of the Industrial Commission are conclusive if supported by competent evidence.
West v. Fertilizer Co.,
The plaintiff, however, contеnds that the defendants should be held to be equitably estoрped to set up the defense that the claim was filеd too late, by reason of the conduct of the employer calculated to induce him to think the clаim bad been duly filed. But the facts found by the Industrial Commission are nоt sufficient to render this principle applicable here. The findings on this point were as follows: “The evidenсe discloses that bis wages were paid him (during fall of 1934) in the usual manner, except that they were delivered to him, as be was unable to go to the store; that nothing was said аbout these wages being paid in lieu of compensаtion provided by the''Workmen’s Compensation Law; . . . that claimant made no reference to being injured on the job, or that be was claiming compensation; . . . that the witness Barger, bookkeeper, to whom accidents were supposed to be reported, testified the first knowledge be bad of an alleged injury on the job was in Junе, 1935. . . . The Commission is convinced that the defendant employer has done nothing in this case that would tend to lull the clаimant into security that be was going to be taken care of under the provisions of the Compensation Law. There is evidence that the claimant sustained a priоr injury to this same leg in 1931, at which time the medical bill was taken сare of in the routine manner under the provisions of thе Compensation Law.”
The question here presented was discussed and decided adversely to the plaintiff by this Cоurt in
Wilson v. Clement Co.,
Unfortunately for the plantiff, being debarred of bis commоn law action, be has been denied compensation for bis injury under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, but on the record and findings of the Commission, we are unable to help him.
Judgment affirmed.