 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Staunton Correctional Center/Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sanderson4/12/2005
issed time.
In a March 5, 2002 letter, received by McLamb, MCI advised employer that it would not be reimbursed for any of claimant's missed time from work as reflected on the two supplementary reports or for any missed time in the future, as the statute of limitations had expired. At that time, employer stopped allowing claimant to fill out his leave forms allocating his missed time as two-thirds workers' compensation and one-third personal leave, and advised him he would be required to submit his missed time due to his compensable injury as personal leave.
Based upon this record, the commission ruled that the twenty-four month limitations period applicable to claimant's June 14, 2002 change-in-condition claim was tolled by the doctrine of imposition. In so ruling, the commission found as follows:
t is apparent that the claimant, as he had for many years, according to the procedure established by employer, advised his supervisor and the timekeeper of the need to be absent for medical treatment and disability as a result of his compensable accident. The timekeeper completed a P8 form, which indicated that the time loss was for workers' compensation , and she forwarded it to the Human Resource Office. This information was then entered into the SIPS system. It is at this point, through no fault of the claimant, the system developed by the Department of Corrections and MCI for processing workers' compensation cases broke down. Because the Human Resource Office faxed the medical slips but not the supplementary reports, the claimant was not given the benefit of being provided with the proper agreement forms as required by the Act. We note that MCI had the reports indicating time loss from work, but failed to either contact the claimant, provide him with agreement forms, or request the supplementary report from the employer. We can understand why the claimant, who was receiving full wages and pay stubs apportioning his time between workers' compensation and leave, was under the impression, as was his employer -- including Ms. Fields, Ms. Pultz and Mr. McLamb -- that his benefits were being paid or reimbursed by workers' compensation. If the Staunton Correctional Center's human resources personnel who processed workers' compensation believed that everything was in order, it is understandable that the claimant would likewise have no reason to question the process or seek additional paperwork.
We note that the supplementary reports in question are not required by the Act, but were for the benefit of MCI.
Initially, we recognize the well-settled rule that an employer's voluntary payment of benefits for medical treatment and lost wages alone does not operate as a matter of law to toll the applicable statute of limitations or prevent an employer from availing itself of that defense. See Clark v.United Airlines, 223 Va. 197, 200, 288 S.E.2d 441, 442-43 (1982). However,
ithin the principles established by statutes and the decisions construing them, the commission has "jurisdiction to do full and complete justice in each case." From that principle has developed the concept known as "imposition," which empowers the commission in appropriate cases to render decisions based on justice shown by the total circumstances even though no fraud, mistake or concealment has been shown. Statutes of limitation "are designed to suppress fraudulent and stale claims from being asserted after a great lapse of time, to the surprise of the parties, when the evidence may have been lost, the facts may have become obscure because of a defective memory, or the witnesses have died or disappeared." None of these factors are applicable to this case. Instead, we find that the concept
Page 1 2 3 4 Virginia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|