Court Opinion

ID: 9669240
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:45:18.728917+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:54.303673
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING.
GOODWYN, Justice.
The only mention of Replication No. 2 in the “statement of the law and facts and conclusions as determined by” the trial judge is the following under the caption “Pleadings,” viz.:
“ * * * Petitioner further by replication contends that the defendant fraudulently and with intent to deceive the petitioner did surpress (sic) and conceal from petitioner certain material fact as set forth in replication number two. That the suppressed and concealed material fact was that Dr. Charles T. Grant, an eye specialist, had reported to the defendant in April 1960 that the loss of petitioner’s left eye was job related and that petitioner had no knowledge of and was ignorant of said report and as a proximate consequence of said suppressed and concealed fact petitioner was deceived and misled by the defendant as to his rights under the Workmen’s Compensation Act until more than one year elapsed from the date of said injury.”
What the employee contends is not a finding of fact. 100 C.J.S. Workmen’s Compensation § 630a., p. 911; Spencer v. Industrial Commission of Utah, 87 Utah 336, 40 P.2d 188, 192, Reheard 87 Utah 358, 48 P.2d 1120.
As we read and understand the trial judge’s “Conclusion of Law,” the -only issue dealt with is that presented by Replication No. 1 (fraudulent misrepresentations of material facts). The “Conclusion' of Law” is as follows:
*651“CONCLUSIÓN OF LAW
■“It is the opinion of the Court that petitioner did lose the sight of his left eye by accidental means while-en-, gaged in performance of his duties at defendant’s plant which would be com-pensible under Workmen’s Compensation Statutes of Alabama!
“That more than one year elapsed from the date of said injury to the bringing of this suit. Therefore, the only remaining question in this case is whether the statute of limitation of one year was tolled by fraudulent misrepresentations as claimed by the petitioner to have been made to him by the defendant’s representative, and relied on by him to his- detriment. The Court finds from the evidence' that the plaintiff was informed and knew as early as May 1960 that the defendant denied liability to.him on the ground that the claimed injury was not job related. According to petitioner’s testimony he also knew, and was so informed by defendant’s representative that his. claim for compensation by the Company was denied as not being job related. That thereafter plaintiff sought aid from his union representative to assist him in obtaining workmen’s compensation from the defendant. It is clear to the Court if there were false representation made to petitioner by the defendant that the plaintiff did not rely on such misrepresentations.
“It is therefore the opinion of the Court that representations made by the defendant to the plaintiff, whether true or false were not relied upon by him and therefore the Statute of Limitation of one year was not tolled.” [Emphasis supplied.]
It seems clear that the “Conclusion of Law” does not deal with the issue presented by Replication No. 2, which charges that “defendant fraudulently and with intent to deceive petitioner, ■ did suppress and conceal from’ the'petitioner a material fact.”
Opinion modified and extended.
Application for rehearing overruled.
LAWSON, MERRILL and COLEMAN, JJ., concur. .