Court Opinion

ID: 9625435
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:41:05.198623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:08.664239
License: Public Domain

ROSE, Justice,
specially concurring, with whom McCLINTOCK, Justice, joins.
I agree with the result and reasoning of this decision, but I feel compelled to emphasize that I do so because I am not permitted, under the pretense of statutory interpretation, to rewrite a clear legislative enactment. See, Legate v. Bituminous Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 483 S.W.2d 488 (Tex.Civ.App. — Beaumont 1972, writ refused n. r. e.). As stated by the appellant in Legate:
“ ‘It is difficult to believe that any law would require of those affected by it that a claim be filed before anyone had knowledge of the facts necessary to make such claim.’ ”
Nevertheless, in Legate and in this case it becomes apparent that this is exactly what the statutes require. As noted in Legate, the legislature — which is the proper forum in which to address this problem — of the State of Texas did repeal a statute similar to that which we apply today. See, 1971 Tex.Gen.Laws, ch. 834, § 2. The ultimate decision on this problem is up to the legislature, but it is important to note that the claimant in this case does suffer from an occupational disease of which he could have had no possible knowledge until after the statute of limitations had run. I cannot conceive of legislation which is more unfair. I would hope the Wyoming Legislature would address the problem — forthwith.