Opinion ID: 1874282
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Statute of Limitations and Latent Discovery

Text: The decisive issue before this Court is whether the Commission erred by denying that the Worker's Compensation statute of limitations may be invoked by an employer when the claimant/employee clearly knew he had been injured in the subject accident, but did not discover the compensable nature of his injuries until over a year after the accident, and did not file a motion to controvert until over two years after the accident. [2] This state's basic rule for latent discovery in worker's compensation cases was first set out in Tabor Motor Co. v. Garrard, 233 So.2d 811, 817 (Miss. 1970): The claim period begins to run from the time compensable injury becomes reasonably apparent. Relying on Tabor, the Court has noted that the statute is tolled until the claimant has reason to foresee or ascertain the likelihood of compensable injury from which incapacity and its extent can reasonably be ascertained by medical evidence. Struthers Wells-Gulfport, Inc. v. Bradford, 304 So.2d 645, 649 (Miss. 1974). In a subsequent case similar to the one at hand, the Court found a latent compensable injury to exist when the claimant knew he had hurt his neck, obtained medical assurance that he had no compensable injury, and then two years later obtained a diagnosis that the initial injury had caused a latent compensable injury in the form of a degenerative disc condition. The Court held that the claimant acted with reasonable care and diligence and that under Tabor and Struthers had sustained a compensable injury. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. v. Long, 362 So.2d 182, 184-185 (Miss. 1978). In Quaker Oats Co. v. Miller, 370 So.2d 1363, 1365-1366 (Miss. 1979), the Court adopted the rule that a claimant's awareness should arise from recognizing the nature, seriousness, and probable compensable character of the injury. Id. (citing Larson, Workmen's Compensation, § 78.41 (1978)). By way of comparison, in Benoist Elevator Co., Inc. v. Mitchell, 485 So.2d 1068, 1069 (Miss. 1986), the claimant was aware of a 1959 injury and significant aggravation it caused, but did not seek treatment until pain and dysfunction became severe in 1975. See also V. Dunn, Mississippi Workmen's Compensation, § 249 (3rd ed. 1982) and (Supp. 1990). In the present case, based on the testimony presented before the administrative judge, the circuit court concluded that the claimant could not have known of the compensable nature of his injuries because, although he continued to seek treatment, even his physicians remained unaware of the compensable nature of his injuries until April of 1985. The claimant clearly knew that he had sustained an injury which continued to require medical attention, but this awareness did not rise to the level of giving him notice of compensability. The fact that Taplin's initial accident was more dramatic than those of the claimants in Struthers or Pepsi-Cola did not give him any greater notice of compensability. More critical to this Court's ruling is that Taplin's physicians did not notify him of the connection leading to compensability until a number of months after the accident. The statute begins to run when the claimant is or reasonably should be aware of having sustained a compensable injury, but the statute is deemed not to have begun running if the claimant's reasonably diligent efforts to obtain treatment yield no medical confirmation of compensable injury. This state's laws do not penalize workers when they, with their physicians' assistance, cannot confirm that their injuries are compensable. Therefore, based on substantial evidence in the record, the court concluded that the latent nature of the claimant's injuries established April, 1985, as the beginning of the statutory limitation period. This led the court to appropriately conclude that the claimant's August 9, 1985, petition to controvert fell within the limitation period.