holding that the burden of notice did not shift to employer after employee requested a meeting with employer’s superintendent and employee’s sister told the superintendent that employee had been injured on the job
How later courts described this case
- holding that the burden of notice did not shift to employer after employee requested a meeting with employer’s superintendent and employee’s sister told the superintendent that employee had been injured on the job
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Denny, J.
The claimant contends that by reason of the inequitable conduct of the defendant-employer, the defendants should be held to be estopped from setting up the defense that his claim was filed too late; that such conduct was responsible for the delay of more than one year in filing his claim.
It must be conceded that unless the doctrine of equitable estoppel can be invoked by the claimant in this proceeding, he is not entitled to recover.
The evidence tends to show that claimant sent two or three messages to the Superintendent of the Safie Manufacturing Company, requesting him to come to see him, and that he promised to do so, but never did. The sister of claimant had a conversation with defendant-employer’s Superintendent in December, 1945, and he asked her what was wrong with her brother; she testified she told him he was hurt in the mill and
*662
he referred her to some lady to find out whether or not she had any report of the accident; that the lady informed her she had a report of an injury to the claimant’s finger; that when she went back to see the Superintendent he had gone in the mill, and she did not see him again until she carried her brother in a rolling chair, to the mill on 13 August, 1946.
It does not appear that the defendant-employer did anything to lull this claimant into believing that his accident had been reported, as required by G.S. 97-22, or that his claim would be filed with the Industrial Commission. Furthermore, there is no evidence of an express or implied agreement on the part of the employer, not to plead the provisions of G.S. 97-24 in bar of any claim that might be filed after the expiration of the time fixed therein.
Wilson v. Clement Co.,
207 N. C. 541 , 177 S. E. 797 ;
Lilly v. Belle Bros.,
210 N. C. 735 , 188 S. E. 319 . On the other hand, there is evidence to support the finding of fact by the Commission that these accidents were not reported to the defendant-employer until 13 August, 1946, and to which finding there is no exception. Such finding is conclusive on appeal.
Creighton v. Snipes,
227 N. C. 90 , 40 S. E. (2) 612;
Rader v. Coach Co.,
225 N. C. 537 , 35 S. E. (2) 609;
Fox v. Cramerton Mills,
225 N. C. 580 , 35 S. E. (2) 869;
Brown v. Carolina Aluminum Co.,
224 N. C. 766 , 32 S. E. (2) 320;
Hegler v. Cannon Mills,
224 N. C. 669 , 31 S. E. (2) 918.
In view of the findings of fact by the Commission, and the failure to file a claim for compensation with the Industrial Commission within one year after claimant’s accidents, the judgment below will be upheld.
Whitted v. Palmer-Bee Co.,
228 N. C. 447 , 46 S. E. (2) 109;
Lineberry v. Mebane,
218 N. C. 737 , 12 S. E. (2) 252;
Winslow v. Carolina Conference
Asso., 211 N. C. 571 , 191 S. E. 403 ;
Lilly v. Belle Bros., supra; Wilson v. Clement Co., supra.
Affirmed.