Case Title: Martinez v. Wester Brothers Wholesale Produce Co.

Citation: 367 P.2d 545, 69 N.M. 375

Docket Number: 

State: new-mexico

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date: 1961-12-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
367 P.2d 545 (1961) 69 N.M. 375 Frank MARTINEZ, Claimant, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WESTER BROTHERS WHOLESALE PRODUCE COMPANY, Employer, Defendant-Appellant. No. 6834. Supreme Court of New Mexico. December 28, 1961. *546 H.E. Blattman, Roberto L. Armijo, Las Vegas, for appellant. Donald A. Martinez, Las Vegas, for appellee. CHAVEZ, Justice. This is a workman's compensation case brought here on appeal by Wester Brothers, Inc., to review a judgment for appellee entered pursuant to a jury verdict. Appellee filed his claim on February 24, 1959, seeking compensation for injuries sustained by appellee on February 12, 1959, while employed by appellant as a delivery truck driver in appellant's produce plant in Las Vegas, New Mexico. Claim was for permanent and total disability. Appellee's claim alleged that appellant refused to pay any compensation, and refused to pay any hospital and medical expenses incurred by appellee. Appellant's answer admitted that appellee was employed by appellant on February 12, 1959; that appellee was doing the work described, and that appellee's average weekly earnings were approximately $52. Appellant denied liability and denied each and every material and affirmative allegation of the claim, not specifically admitted. Appellant, by way of affirmative defense, alleged that appellee's claim was prematurely filed in that the injury was suffered on February 12, 1959, and the claim was filed on February 24, 1959. Appellant, at the commencement of the trial, moved that the claim be dismissed as being prematurely filed. The motion was overruled. After the jury verdict, and before entry of judgment, appellant filed a motion for judgment for appellant notwithstanding the verdict, which was also overruled. On February 10, 1960, the jury returned a verdict for appellee, finding him permanently, partially disabled to the extent of 75%, and the trial court entered judgment that appellant pay appellee compensation at the rate of $22.50 per week for a period of 550 weeks, commencing February 12, 1959. Appellee was a truck driver delivering produce to appellant's customers in Las Vegas. On February 12, 1959, while setting up an order, he tried to get down the top crate of cabbages, the top crate slipped and the crates fell, pushing appellee down causing injury to his back. Appellee testified that the crates were about head high and weighed 125 to 130 pounds. Although in pain, appellee continued working until 4:00 p.m. when he told a fellow employee that he thought he had strained his back. The fellow employee suggested that he should tell Mr. Paul Bow, the bookkeeper for appellant. Appellee told Paul Bow, who advised appellee to go to a doctor and "Tomorrow you come back so we can make a report of injury." That evening appellee saw Dr. Junius A. Evans and the next day he again saw Paul Bow who wrote out a report of injury. About five days later appellee went to see Mr. John Wester, president of appellant corporation. Appellee testified: On cross-examination, appellee testified: Appellant, John Wester, testified: On cross-examination Mr. Wester testified: The sole question for decision is whether the claim was prematurely filed. The controlling statutory provisions are: Section 59-10-13, N.M.S.A. 1953 Comp., which provides: Section 59-10-18, N.M.S.A. 1953 Comp., provides: Section 59-10-19, N.M.S.A. 1953 Comp., provides: "Compensation for all classes of injuries shall run as follows: Appellant relies upon Fresquez v. Farnsworth & Chambers Co., 60 N.M. 384, 291 P.2d 1102; Spieker v. Skelly Oil Co., 58 N.M. 674, 274 P.2d 625; State ex rel. Mountain States Mut. Cas. Co. v. Swope, 58 N.M. 553, 273 P.2d 750; and George v. Miller & Smith, 54 N.M. 210, 219 P.2d 285. Appellant contends that the claimant cannot file suit until thirty-one days after the day of the injury; and that on February 24, 1952, no payment was due and appellant was not in default in any respect. Appellee concedes that the cases cited by appellant stand for the proposition that an injured workman cannot file his claim for benefits until there has been a failure or refusal on the part of the employer to pay to the injured workman some instalment of compensation that has become due to him. Appellee further concedes that there can ordinarily be no failure to pay any compensation until the first one becomes due, which is thirty-one days after the injury becomes compensable. However, appellee argues that appellant's refusal to furnish appellee's hospital and medical services and appellant's statement about five days after the injury, that he would not pay compensation, distinguishes this case from the cases cited by appellant. In Fresquez v. Farnsworth & Chambers Co., supra [60 N.M. 384, 291 P.2d 1103], this court said: We have already set out that the injury occurred on February 12, 1959, and suit was filed on February 24, 1959. The conversation between appellee and John Wester, the president of appellant's company, wherein Wester denied liability and told appellee that he would not pay compensation or hospital and medical benefits, occurred about five days after the injury. It seems to us that on February 24, 1959, the date that the claim was filed, appellant had not failed or refused to pay the compensation provided by law, because the first instalment payment was not due until *551 thirty-one days after February 12, 1959, the date of the injury. On the date that the claim was filed there was no duty on the part of the employer to make the first instalment payment, and there could be no refusal or failure to pay until such time as that duty fell upon the employer. Spieker v. Skelly Oil Co., supra. In State v. Swope, supra, we held that where there was no payment due and payable to the worker, threats made by an unscrupulous adjuster for the insurance company that payments would be discontinued unless the worker would settle for $3,000, were not equivalent to a failure or refusal to pay compensation payments when due. In George v. Miller & Smith, supra [54 N.M. 210, 219 P.2d 286], this court, speaking through Justice Lujan, said: As to instalment compensation payments, we hold that the claim filed by appellee was prematurely filed. We now consider appellee's contention relative to surgical, medical and hospital services. The employer, appellant here, had notice of the injury the morning after it happened. A report of injury was written out the day after the accident by Paul Bow, appellant's bookkeeper. The record discloses that appellee received medical services from the evening of February 12, 1959, the date of the injury, up to the time of trial approximately a year later. He incurred medical expenses for services rendered by Dr. Junius A. Evans of Las Vegas, by Dr. L.M. Overton, an orthopedic physician in Albuquerque, and by Ruth A. Bauer, a physical therapist. He also incurred hospital expenses in the Las Vegas Hospital. It is noted that as to instalment compensation payments, the statute provides that they shall be made semi-monthly, except that the first instalment shall be paid not later than thirty-one days after the date of the injury. As to medical and hospital benefits, which the injured workman is entitled to under the Act, there is no limitation except that after injury and continuing so long as medical or surgical attention is reasonably necessary, the employer shall furnish all reasonable medical, surgical and hospital services, and medicine, not exceeding $700. See Nasci v. Frank Paxton Lumber Co., (No. 7050, decided today), 69 N.M. 412, 367 P.2d 913. We call attention to the fact that the judgment rendered by the district court omitted any mention of surgical, medical or hospital expenses, no doubt on the basis that the principal contention was the amount of compensation. However, the claimant, having sought medical, surgical and hospital expenses in his claim, should not be prohibited from recovering such expenses because of the failure to mention the same in the judgment. The cause is reversed with direction to the district court to dismiss that part of the claim which relates to instalment compensation payments and to proceed in a manner not inconsistent with the view herein expressed as to medical, surgical and hospital expenses. It is so ordered. COMPTON, C.J., and CARMODY, J., concur. MOISE and NOBLE, JJ., not participating.