Title: Travelers Ins. Co. v. Jackson

State: tennessee

Issuer: Tennessee Supreme Court

Document:

332 S.W.2d 674 (1960) TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO. v. Rudolph JACKSON. Supreme Court of Tennessee. February 5, 1960. Rehearing denied March 11, 1960. Glasgow & Adams, S. McP. Glasgow, Jr., Alfred T. Adams, Jr., Nashville, for plaintiff in error. Jackson, Tanner, Reynolds & King, Eugene D. Jackson, Jr., Nashville, for defendant in error. PREWITT, Justice. This is a Workmen's Compensation case instituted by the petitioner, Rudolph Jackson, to recover for a back injury occurring as the result of an accident on November 29, 1956, while working for his employer and the injury arose out of and in the course of his employment as a laborer for Wrenn-Singleton & Gallagher in Davidson County. The lower court awarded compensation for petitioner's back injury which occurred on November 29, 1956. However, the petition was not filed until January 29, 1958, or about fourteen months after the injury occurred. It also appears that on the date of his injury he reported it to his employer and was sent to the doctor, who strapped up his back and told him that nature would take care of his cure. Thereafter he went back to work and it seems that he was operated on in December, 1957, at which time a ruptured disc was repaired. Here it appears that the employee sustains an accidental injury in the scope of his employment and is continually thereafter under a partial physical disability as a result of such accidental injury, and continually from the date of the accident. It further appears that he knew himself to be suffering from a disability right after the accident happened, and he is required under the Workmen's Compensation Law, to bring his action for benefits within the one-year statutory period of limitations and is barred from bringing such action after the lapse of one year, T.C.A. § 50-1003. Bradford v. Dixie Mercerizing Co., 199 Tenn. 170, 285 S.W.2d 136; Griffitts v. Humphrey, 199 Tenn. 528, 288 S.W.2d 1; and Pittman v. City Stores, Inc., 204 Tenn. 650, 325 S.W.2d 249. *675 It appears that the petitioner was aware, continually from and after the date of his accidental injury, and he was partially disabled on account of the accident. It appears that the applicable rule in all Workmen's Compensation cases is that the determinative starting point for the running of the statute is the occurrence of the injury rather than the happening of the accident. We quote the following from Pittman v. City Stores, Inc., 204 Tenn. 650, 325 S.W.2d 249, 252, wherein it was said: It results that defendant's plea in abatement on the question of the statute of limitations of one year should have been sustained. The judgment of the lower court is reversed and this suit dismissed.