Opinion ID: 1189901
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: as to the timeliness of claimant's claim for compensation

Text: AS 23.30.100(a) of the Alaska Workmen's Compensation Act provides: Notice of an injury    in respect to which compensation is payable under this chapter shall be given within 30 days after the date of such injury   to the board and to the employer. Limitation periods pertaining to notice of injury, such as that contained in our compensation act, have been held to possess the dual purpose of enabling    the employer to provide immediate medical diagnosis and treatment with a view to minimizing the seriousness of the injury; and second, to facilitate the earliest possible investigation of the facts surrounding the injury. [1] No issue as to the timeliness of claimant's notice of injury is presented by this appeal. The question here is whether or not claimant timely filed a claim for compensation within the period prescribed by AS 23.30.105(a). This section of our compensation act provides: The right to compensation for disability under this chapter is barred unless a claim for it is filed within two years after the employee has knowledge of the nature of his disability and its relation to his employment and after disablement. However, the maximum time for filing the claim in any event other than arising out of an occupational disease shall be four years from the date of injury    except that if payment of compensation has been made without an award on account of the injury or death, a claim may be filed within two years after the date of the last payment. It is additionally provided that, in the case of latent defects pertinent to and causing compensable disability, the injured employee has full right to claim as shall be determined by the board, time limitations notwithstanding. [2] The purpose of AS 23.30.105(a)'s limitation as to the filing of a compensation claim is to protect the employer against claims too old to be successfully investigated and defended. [3] In the proceedings held before the Board, Morrison-Knudsen filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of claimant's noncompliance with the provisions of AS 23.30.105 (a). [4] When claimant's application for compensation came before the Board for hearing on May 16, 1963, the Board took Morrison-Knudsen's motion to dismiss under advisement. The record discloses that thereafter the Board did not enter any order in regard to the subject motion to dismiss. In its Findings and Award, which were filed on February 18, 1964, the Board also failed to make any specific finding or reference to the employer's then pending motion to dismiss, although paragraph number eight of the Board's Findings and Award stated that All issues of fact are resolved in favor of applicant. On appeal, the superior court, on March 19, 1965, entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order which affirmed in all respects the Board's favorable determination of claimant's application for compensation. As to the issue under consideration the superior court concluded that claimant had timely complied with AS 23.30.105(a)'s mandate on two separate grounds. First, on the basis of several letters which had been introduced into evidence before the Board, the superior court determined that claimant had filed a claim for compensation within two years of the date of the employer's last payment of compensation to claimant. (Note: The evidence is undisputed that claimant sustained an accidental injury on July 14, 1960, and that subsequent thereto his employer voluntarily paid compensation until October 15, 1960.) Secondly, the superior court further concluded that claimant had filed a claim for compensation within two years after he first acquired knowledge of the nature of his disability and its relation to his employment. [5] We hold that under the evidence adduced in the record neither the Board nor the superior court erred in concluding that claimant's application for compensation was timely filed. Although the Board did not file a separate order pertaining to the employer's motion and its Findings and Award of February 18, 1964, omitted any specific findings in regard to the motion to dismiss, we hold that under the circumstances the Board's failure to enter any such order or findings does not require remand for the purpose of correction of this omission. Under our Administrative Procedure Act, a decision of the Board is required to contain findings of fact. [6] Nevertheless, we are of the opinion that no meaningful purpose would be served by a remand in this case. We are of the opinion that the Board's conclusion to award compensation to claimant clearly disclosed that the Board had determined the pending motion to dismiss adversely to Morrison-Knudsen. Although we have concluded that the Board's failure to file a separate order or to make any findings as to Morrison-Knudsen's motion to dismiss does not require a remand in this case, we are of the opinion that the better practice is, and in future cases coming before the Board, the Board should either file a separate order or in its decision make findings which disclose the basis for its determination of such motions. The evidence in regard to this issue discloses that claimant sustained an accidental injury on July 14, 1960, while employed by Morrison-Knudsen as a laborer in Fairbanks, Alaska. Claimant sustained an injury to his back while lifting a large timber and then shortly thereafter lifting a bag of cement. As a result of this injury claimant was hospitalized for two weeks under the care of Dr. Paul B. Haggland. While hospitalized, claimant was placed in traction and received diathermy treatment for low back sprain. Subsequent to his release from hospitalization, claimant was periodically treated by Dr. Haggland until October 15, 1960. [7] On this date Dr. Haggland discharged claimant from his care finding that claimant was able to resume work. After being discharged from Dr. Haggland's care, claimant left Alaska to visit his parents in South Carolina and thereafter visited his relatives in the State of Connecticut. On January 20, 1961, during his visit in Connecticut, claimant again experienced back trouble which resulted in twelve days' hospitalization under the care of Dr. Frank Serena. Claimant was again placed in traction and given physiotherapy treatments. Dr. Serena continued to treat claimant until June 9, 1961. In a report dated June 22, 1961, Dr. Serena stated in part that: The patient has not progressed very well up to the present date. He still has marked limitation of motion, and still a great deal of discomfort over the lumbo-sacral region, and radiation down the entire length of the left leg. It is my opinion that this stems from the original injury and as a matter of fact, this patient has never recovered from the back injury sustained in Alaska. The patient was last seen on 6-9-61, and still has marked limitation of motion with severe back pain and radiation down the left leg  posteriorly. There was spasm of the erector spinal muscles, and quite a bit of distress. The patient had trouble sitting, walking, etc. The patient has had absolutely no beneficial results from physiotherapy, or from the lumbo-sacral corset. It is my feeling that this patient's 100 percent permanently disabled at this time, and will continue to remain so unless subjected to surgical procedure. This is now being contemplated. My diagnosis is that of lumbo-sacral sprain, with herniated disc at lumbo-sacral junction  left side. Additionally, the record discloses that at the May 16, 1963, hearing before the Board claimant testified that he didn't know what his disability was until approximately July of 1961. The record further shows that claimant filed an application for adjustment of claim (dated February 25, 1963) with the Board in February 1963. On the basis of the foregoing, we have concluded that the Board and the superior court could have properly concluded that claimant's February 25, 1963, application for adjustment of claim was filed within two years after claimant had (or a reasonable person in claimant's position should have acquired) knowledge of the nature of his disability and its relation to his employment and after disablement. [8] Unlike our previous compensation act which commenced the limitation period for filing a notice of claim from the date of injury, [9] or in contrast with other states' compensation acts which date the limitation period from the accident, [10] our present statute alternatively fixes the limitation period from the time the injured employee acquires knowledge of the nature of his disability and its relation to his employment. Here the record discloses that claimant was a twenty-five year old laborer, had a twelfth grade education, and was a layman in respect to medical matters. There was substantial evidence in the record supporting the following: That claimant was injured on July 14, 1960, and was thereafter treated by Dr. Haggland who, on October 15, 1960, released claimant from his care as fit for work. That subsequent to his discharge claimant experienced further back difficulty in January of 1961 which resulted in hospitalization and treatment by Dr. Frank Serena. That it wasn't until Dr. Serena made his report on June 22, 1961, or shortly thereafter (in July of 1961) that claimant learned his then disabling back trouble was attributable to the July 14, 1960, injury. Thus, on the basis of the evidence adduced and reasonable inferences therefrom, the record supports the conclusion that claimant did not know (and a reasonable person would not have known prior thereto) until approximately June or July of 1961 the nature of his disability and its relation to his employment. In short, after claimant was discharged by Dr. Haggland in October of 1960 as fit for work, he did not acquire knowledge of the nature of his disability and its relation to his employment of July 14, 1960, until approximately the time Dr. Serena rendered his report of June 22, 1961. The following portion of the court's opinion in Great American Indem. Co. v. Britton [11] is appropriate here: Similarly, an intent to bar claims under such circumstances as are presented here cannot fairly be imputed to Congress. The employee duly sought and received medical advice, in line with his employer's instructions. That advice did not permit him, in good conscience, to file a claim. Ignorance based on completely erroneous advice from a physician can be even more profound  and more dangerous in its consequences  than ignorance based on no advice at all. Such advice effectively prevents a conscientious employee, or a lawyer regardful of the standards of his profession, from filing a claim for an award, at least until different advice of equal or higher standing is received. We cannot place a premium on the filing of claims which fly in the face of professional advice and ethical standards. [12] On the basis of the foregoing, we conclude that claimant's February 25, 1963, application for adjustment of claims was, pursuant to AS 23.30.105(a), timely filed with the Board. In light of this conclusion, we consider it unnecessary to discuss any of the alternate grounds which claimant urges in support of the Board's and superior court's determinations in regard to this limitation issue. [13]