Court Opinion

ID: 9546051
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:24:09.681127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:55.731672
License: Public Domain

MOISE, Justice (dissenting). We are here called upon to interpret § 59-10-13, N.M.S.A.1953, insofar as the same requires notice of an accident. To do so it is important that the pertinent parts of the section be considered, and to that end we quote it, as follows: “ * * * Any workman claiming to be entitled under this act (sections 57-901-57-931 (59-10-1 to 59-10-31)) to compensation from any employer on account of injury suffered by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment shall give notice in writing of such accident and of such injury to such employer within thirty (30) days after the occurrence thereof, unless prevented by such injury or other causes beyond his control, and, if so prevented, as soon as the same may be reasonably done, and at all events not later than sixty (60) days after such accident; Provided, that no such written notice shall be requisite where the employer or any superintendent or foreman or other agent in charge of the work in connection with such injury occurred had actual knowledge of the occurrence thereof. Except in the case of such workman being prevented from giving notice by his injuries and in case where no notice is required no workman failing to give such notice within said thirty (30) days after such injuries occurred shall be allowed to recover any compensation on account of such injury under any circumstances whatever for the period he shall remain in default in giving such notice. * * ” I have no quarrel with the quotation in the majority opinion from 2 Larson’s Workmen’s Compensation Law 251. To the same effect are the notes in 78 A.L.R. 1232, 92 A.L.R. 505, 107 A.L.R. 815 and 145 A.L.R. 1263. The following in the quotation from Dean Larson should not be overlooked: “Some statutes, however, by making the claim period run from the date of ‘accident’, have produced holdings that an injury which manifests itself for the first time after the period has expired is nevertheless barred.” That our statute is of this last mentioned type and even more definitely than any others to which my attention has been called and demands such a result is clear as I will undertake to demonstrate. The important provision in our statute is that notice be given of “such accident and such injury” within 30 days “after the occurrence thereof.” If this was all that was said I could agree that the accident and injury might be considered as two different items or occurrences, and until the nature or extent of the injury was known the time would not begin to run. However, the section goes on to say that giving the notice may be excused if “prevented by such injury or other causes” beyond the control of the claimant and “if so prevented, as soon as the same may be reasonably done, and at all events not later than sixty (60) days after such accident.” I could easily agree that if the nature and extent of the injury was not known this would be something “beyond the control” of the claimant and could excuse the filing within 30 days. But what is meant by the statute when it goes on and says that if so prevented, notice must be given “as soon as the same may be reasonably done” and then goes on further and says, “and at all events not later than sixty days after such accident”? To my mind, “at all events” means the same as “in no event.” This term was defined in Travelers Ins. Co. v. Norton, D.C., 24 F.Supp. 243, 245, as meaning “under no circumstances.” It seems to me that “at all events” means “under every circumstance” or “in every case,” or “without exception.” In view of the provision, then, which requires that the notice must be given within 60 days after the accident without exception, how can it be said that under certain circumstances the time can be extended? This can only be done if “accident” is something different than the untoward event giving rise to the injury, and if it can cover a period of time. That this may occur in certain cases may be conceded as witness Webb v. New Mexico Pub. Co., 47 N.M. 279, 141 P.2d 333, 148 A.L.R. 1002. However, here the claimant did no more work for the employer after the incident and so the accident must have happened on the last day of his work or not in the course of his employment. In the quotation from 2 Larson’s Workmen’s Compensation Law 260, contained in the majority opinion, it is stated that the time for notice begins to run from the “accident” where the statute “expressly” dates “the limitation period from the accident.” This is exactly what our statute does when it says the notice shall be given “at all events not later than sixty (60) days after such accident” this, in the same sentence as the clause which excuses notice within thirty (30) days after the occurrence of “such accident and such injury.” The fact that the words “accident” and “injury” are both used in the first clause and only “accident” in the later clause must be assumed by us to have been intentionally and not inadvertently done by the legislature. Carper v. Board of County Commissioners of Eddy County, 57 N.M. 137, 255 P.2d 673. Unless there is some controlling consideration otherwise, we must assume that the legislature chose its words carefully to say exactly what it meant, and to accomplish the ends desired by it. In re Cox’ Estate, 57 N.M. 543, 260 P.2d 909. It is a long standing rule of statutory construction that “each and every part of the statute, where possible, must be given same effect in an effort to reconcile it in meaning with every other part.” Cox v. City of Albuquerque, 53 N.M. 334, 207 P.2d 1017, 1021. Again in this same case it was stated that “particular clauses and phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part of the statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts,” citing State ex rel. Dresden v. District Court of Second Judicial District, 45 N.M. 119, 112 P.2d 506, 508. See also State ex rel. Murphy v. Morley, 63 N.M. 267, 317 P.2d 317, setting forth pertinent and helpful rules of statutory construction. In the light of these rules can it be said that the legislature intended by the use of the word “accident” in the clause beginning “and at all events” it meant “accident and injury”? It would seem clear that the answer must be in the negative. The majority makes reference to the remedial nature of the workmen’s compensation legislation and to the rules requiring liberal construction. With this I am in complete accord. However, as was said in Martin v. White Pine Lumber Co., 34 N.M. 483, 284 P. 115, and again in Copeland v. Black 65 N.M. 214, 334, P.2d 1116, 1117, where the question at issue was the very one here being considered: “ * * * liberal construction does not mean total disregard for the statute, or repeal of it under the guise of construction.” I assert that is exactly what the majority do in the instant case. Some support for the conclusions reached by the majority is sought in that part of § 59-10-13, which reads: “ * * * Except in the case of such workman being prevented from giving notice by his injuries and in case where no notice is required no workman failing to give such notice within said thirty (30) days after such injuries occurred shall be allowed to recover any compensation on account of such injury under any circumstances whatever for the period he shall remain in default in giving such notice.” The plain meaning of the quoted language to my mind, is nothing more nor less, than that where notice is not required to be given because the employer had knowledge of the accident, or where notice is excused if not given within 30 days “after such injuries,” (note the word used is not “accident”), because prevented “by such injury or other causes beyond his control,” in those situations where he may be entitled to recover, he nevertheless shall not “under any circumstances” be entitled “to recover any compensation on account of such injury * * * for the period he shall remain (remained) in default in giving such notice.” Certainly there is nothing in the language quoted which in any way changes the notice limitation of 60 days “at all events.” I fail to see how the quoted language gives the majority any aid or comfort. How the case of Minardi v. Pacific Airmotive Corp., 43 N.J. Super. 460, 129 A.2d 51, cited by the majority and quoted from at length, helps their position is difficult for me to see. It should be pointed out in the first place that the decision is by a County Court, not one of the appellate courts of the state. In the second place, the section of the statute being interpreted differs materially from ours, since it required notice “within 48 hours of the occurrence of the hernia.” “Occurrence of the hernia” is more reasonably equated with “injury” than with “accident.” In the third place, considerable question is cast upon the correctness of the decision by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, a higher court, in the later case of Buzza v. General Motors Corp., 49 N.J.Super. 322, 139 A.2d 790, 793. Although the majority here would distinguish the- Buzza case on its facts from the Minardi case, I submit there is no difference requiring a different result, and further that it is more nearly identical with the case at bar than is the Minardi case. Concerning the Minardi case, the Appellate Division said, “The Minardi case does not help petitioner, even if regarded as correctly decided” thus inferring that it was not, and again said: “ * * * The Legislature had the right to fix the evidential and procedural prerequisites for a compensable hernia claim. The ordinarily applicable rule of liberality of construction of the Workmen’s Compensation Act will not excuse judicial disregard of legislative intention made clearly manifest by a study of the background, objectives and contents of the statute as it stands, in order to foster what the court might deem more liberal treatment of an employee’s claim. See Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Board of Review, 25 N.J. 221, 234, 135 A.2d 489 (1957). Our obligation always is to enforce the legislative intent, once we are clear as to what that really is. In view of the above conclusion, we must overrule the construction of the hernia provision set forth by the County Court in Minardi v. Pacific Airmotive Corp., supra.” The conclusion reached in the case of Clausen v. Minnesota Steel Co., 186 Minn. 80, 242, N.W. 397, 399, cited and quoted from by the majority, resulted from the particular language of the statute .there being interpreted. This language is materially different from that used by our legislature. That a different result would have been reached by the Minnesota court if the language of their statute had been comparable to ours is evident from the following quoted from the opinion: “Where the statute provides that a claim for compensation is barred unless notice is given the employer or claim filed within a certain time from ‘the accident,’ or ‘after the date of the accident,’ or ‘after the date upon which the injury occurs,’ there is hardly room for construction.” As was done in the Buzza case in New Jersey, I would base my conclusion on what seems to me to be the clear language of the pertinent provision of our statute being interpreted. To this I would add, as did the New Jersey court, that hernias are a special type of disability and recognition of this by legislatures generally has resulted in certain extra requirements being made in workmen’s compensation statutes in order to justify an award because of the same. See Larson’s Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 39.70. Our legislature provided for certain special conditions of proof in hernia cases in § 59-10-18. Concerning these requirements this court had the following to say in Martin v. White Pine Lumber Co., supra [34 N.M. 483, 284 P. 116]: “Counsel seem to agree that the special provisions concerning hernia were included in the statute because of special difficulties in dealing with that ailment and because, from its nature, it offered an easy means of imposition and fraud.” It seems to me that in the light of the peculiar and specific language in our statute and the very evident intent of our legislature, we are forced to conclude that notice was not timely given. Elsea v. Broome Furn. Co., 47 N.M. 356, 143 P.2d 572, is not contra to this conclusion because there the employer had notice of the accidents when they happened, and this was all that was required and, accordingly, additional notice was excused. Letteau v. Reynolds Elec. Co., 60 N.M. 234, 290 P.2d 1072, points up that the “accident” and “injury” may be two separate items or “incidents” and notice was given. Anderson v. Contract Trucking Co., 48 N.M. 158, 146 P.2d 873, is another case where the happening of the accident was known to employer’s superintendent and notice was excused. In Harlow v. Hare, 51 N.M. 326, 184 P.2d 300, the employer had actual notice of the accident. These cases merely point up that if the employer has notice of the accident or if notice is given, the time for filing suit runs from the date when the employee knows or as a reasonable man should have known of the nature of his injuries. The cases of Copeland v. Black, supra; Yardman v. Cooper, 65 N.M. 450, 339 P.2d 473, and Ogletree v. Jones, 44 N.M. 567, 106 P.2d 302, all being cases where the employer had no knowledge of the accident and notice was not timely given under the statute, correctly concluded that the claims were barred. If the legislature intended something different from what they said, they should let it be known by amending the language to so indicate. The 1959 session of the legislature did some amending by repealing the old § 59-10-13, and substituting a new section (§ 59-10-13.4, N.M.S.A.1953, 1959 Supp.) which states the notice- must be given “at all events not later than sixty (60) days after the occurrence of the accident.” The italicized words were added. Without in any degree purporting to prejudge what the legal effect of the addition of these three words may be, it is not amiss to suggest that they certainly do not demonstrate an intention on the part of the legislature to liberalize the notice provision, and make notice timely if done within 30 days or 60 days after the workman realizes he has a compensable injury. Since, according to my views, the majority by their decision in this case have read into the statute what the legislature has not put there and have thereby arrived at an erroneous result, I dissent therefrom. CARMODY, J., concurs.