Opinion ID: 1162806
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: employer's representation

Text: The Court of Appeals also based its finding for the claimant on the respondent's reassurance that all medical expenses would be taken care of and there was no need for a lawyer. The Court of Appeals held that these uncontroverted circumstances took the case outside the purview of McDonald. This finding is incorrect for two reasons. First, the issue before the Court of Appeals, and this Court, was preservation of rights in relation to the awareness doctrine, not misrepresentation or fraud. Moreover, the language of § 43 is clear and is the law to be applied in this case without exception. Hackler, at 1363. As in Hackler, supra, employer paid for everything, his medical expenses as well as temporary disability benefits for the time period he was treated for the original injury. The limitation began to run upon the last medical payment rather than from the time of the accident, and Seaton's claim was brought long after the expiration of a year beyond the last medical payment. The claim is time barred, as claimant's rights are not preserved. The Order of the Workers' Compensation Court is SUSTAINED. OPALA, C.J., HODGES, V.C.J., and LAVENDER and HARGRAVE, JJ., concur. ALMA WILSON, KAUGER and SUMMERS, JJ., dissent.