Court Opinion

ID: 9634613
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:18:10.100981+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:06.612859
License: Public Domain

McKUSICK, C. J.,
concurring.
GODFREY, J., with whom NICHOLS and CARTER, JJ., join, concurring in separate opinion.
*774GODFREY, Justice, concurring with whom NICHOLS and CARTER, JJ., join.
I concur in the result on the plain and simple ground given by the Commissioner; namely, that Riñes sustained his injury on June 19,1975, and did not file an agreement or a petition within two years thereafter. From the evidence of record, described in the majority opinion, it is clear that Riñes was aware he had been hurt as a result of his fall and that his injury was work-related. In fact, he notified his employer of the injury quite promptly. This is not a case where serious symptoms, including pain, did not develop until considerable time had elapsed after the work-related incident occurred. I see no necessity for reaching the question in this case whether the term “injury,” as used in the pertinent limitation provision of section 95, must be construed as having the same meaning as the term “accident” under the prior law. As a matter of fact, in this case accident and injury occurred at the same time.