Opinion ID: 1210296
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: reasonableness of delay in filing claim

Text: Appellant also contends that her failure to file within the prescribed limitation period is excused because her delay in filing was reasonable. In support of this contention, reference is made to the familiar rule that [t]he time period for notice or claim does not begin to run until the claimant, as a reasonable man, should recognize the nature, seriousness and probable compensable character of his injury or desease. 3 Larson, supra § 78.41 (1970); Highway Super Market, Ltd. v. Matsuo, 50 Haw. 519, 521, 445 P.2d 34, 35-36 (1968). We are told that appellant, through no fault of her own, failed to recognize the compensable character of her injuries. The record fails to support appellant's contention. Appellant inquired of the Atomic Energy Commission as to the availability of disability insurance or compensation. She was, in addition, assisted by counsel in pursuing her remedy against the other driver involved in the accident. If, at the time of the accident, appellant had inquired of appellee, her immediate employer, in the same manner as she inquired of the Atomic Energy Commission, appellant would not be in the position she is in at the present time. We agree with the finding of the Appeals Board that on this record appellant's lack of knowledge of the availability of compensation benefits does not constitute good cause excusing her delay in filing. Appellant, who was represented by counsel, should have recognized the compensable character of her injuries.