This is an appeal from the dismissal of a workmen’s compensation claim as being barred by the statute of limitations.
The single question involved is whether the statute of limitations pertaining to the New Mexico Workmen’s Cоmpensation Act is applicable to a minor dependent of a deceased workman.
Mаrtin Zamora was employed by the New Mexico Highway Department and allegedly died as a result of аn accident on October 17, 1956. This action was filed on January 22, 1959, on behalf of Navor Selgado, a minor, bаsed upon the allegation that he was a recognized' son of Martin-Zamora. The minor involved in this, pаr-ticular action was approximately six months old at the time of the death of the workman and some months less than three years of age at the time of the filing of the claim for compensation.
The dеfendant’s answer contained, among others, the defense that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations, this having reference to § 59-10-17, N.M. S.A., 1953 Comp., which relates to the payment of claims for dependents in thе event of the death of a workman. The last sentence of the above noted section of the statute reads as follows :
“Provided, that no claim shall be filed or suit brought to recover such compеnsation unless claim therefor be filed within one (1) year after the date of such death.”
The New Mexicо Workmen’s Compensation Act contains no exception tolling the limitation by reason of minority or incompetency. This court, on numerous occasions, has held that the limitation for the filing of a workmen’s compensation claim is jurisdictional and that failure to file the same within the statutory period requires а dismissal of the action. Ogletree v. Jones, 1940,
Therefore, unless there- is a different rule to be applied in the case of a minor than in that of a workman or his beneficiaries who were not under disability, the cases above mentioned should be controlling.
The only case in New Mexico which has been pointеd out to us which has any direct bearing upon the question is Sanchez v. Bernalillo County, supra [
“There is no such provision in our Act which saves the rights of dependents under disability from the running of limitations, although, as appears in 57-918, supra, when dependents are shown to be entitled to bеnefits, the court has authority to appoint a person to receive the same for such dependents in such portions and amounts as it may determine to be for the best interests of them and of the public. The time within which such benefits must be claimed, however, is nowhere enlarged in favor of claimants under disability(Emрhasis ours.)
The above statement is in accord with the weight of authority. See 142 A.L.K. 1035, at page 1043, wherein it is said:
“In thе absence of express exceptions to ■ the limitation provisions of the workmen’s compеnsation act, minor dependents or beneficiaries are generally held not excused from failurе to comply therewith.”
Appellant cites several cases from other jurisdictions, seeking to sustain his сontention that the statute of limitations should be tolled. However, the cases cited are not workmen’s compensation cases and are generally claims for personal injuries against municipalities, and therefore have no persuasive effect.
Appellant also contends that we should give a liberal interpretation to our statute in order to grant relief in a case such as this. However, this argument should be directed to the legislature and not to the court, as was so well stated in Sanchez v. Bеrnalillo County, supra:
“As has been said many times, it is not the province of the court, but of the legislature, to make changes in the provisions of statute law. Where the law-making body has specified clearly who shаll be entitled to compensation benefits and under what circumstances, the court should not alter thе conditions required to obtain such benefits.”
And in Yardman v. Cooper, supra [
“It does not matter how liberal a construction in favor of thе claimant we may want to place to the Act, we are not authorized to disregard the plain lаnguage and wording of the Statute as enacted by the Legislature. Liberal construction does not mean total disregard for the Statute. Martin v. White Pine Lumber Co.,34 N.M. 483 ,284 P. 115 .”
The New Mexico legislature has been in regular session on three occasions since Sanchez v. Bernalillo County, supra, was decided, and has not seеn fit to amend the statute, no doubt for good and cogent reasons.
We conclude that the judgment is correct and should be affirmed. It is so ordered.