From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kushner v. Strick Trailer Co.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Nov 8, 1973
312 A.2d 471 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1973)

Opinion

Argued October 5, 1973

November 8, 1973.

Workmen's compensation — Petition to set aside final receipt — The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, Act 1915, June 2, P. L. 736 — Limitation el actions — Estoppel — Misleading conduct — Time of misconduct.

1. Under provisions of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, Act 1915, June 2, P. L. 736, a petition to set aside a final receipt must be filed within two years from the date to which payments have been made. [520]

2. An employer is estopped from raising a statute of limitations defense in a workmen's compensation case where the employer has caused the employe to believe that compensation would be paid and that the employe need not pursue his claim. [520-1]

3. A workmen's compensation claimant asserting that the employer is estopped by his conduct from raising a statute of limitations defense must nevertheless make the required filing within the statutory period after the conduct giving rise to the claim of estoppel. [521]

Argued October 5, 1973, before Judges KRAMER, ROGERS and BLATT, sitting as a panel of three.

Appeal, No. 1134 C.D. 1972, from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, in case of Lucas Kushner v. Strick Trailer Company, No. 4733 July Term, 1970.

Petition with Department of Labor and Industry to set aside final compensation receipt. Compensation awarded. Employer appealed to the Workmen's Compensation (Appeal) Board. Award reversed. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. Denial affirmed. HIRSH, J. Petitioner appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.

James E. Colleran, with him Beasley, Hewson, Casey, Kraft Colleran, for appellant. David L. Pennington, with him Harvey, Pennington, Herting Renneisen, Ltd., for appellee.


Lucas Kushner was injured in his employment by Strick Trailer Company on February 16, 1962. He was paid workmen's compensation benefits for total disability under an agreement until September 16, 1962 when he executed a final receipt and returned to work. On June 16, 1964, Mr. Kushner suffered a recurrence of symptoms from the injuries sustained on February 16, 1962 and underwent surgery. While in the hospital he instructed his wife to obtain from Strick the forms necessary to reinstate his workmen's compensation. Mrs. Kushner was advised by a clerk in Strick's personnel office that her husband was not entitled to additional workmen's compensation. Strick sent the Kushners an application for sick benefits under a company plan. Mr. Kushner, realizing that these were not applications for workmen's compensation, directed his wife to again request forms for application for workmen's compensation. Again the personnel clerk advised Mrs. Kushner that her husband was not entitled to workmen's compensation but that he could obtain sick benefits. Mr. Kushner then applied for sick benefits and received payments on this account for thirty months. His disability continuing, Mr. Kushner filed a petition to reinstate the original compensation agreement on November 21, 1966, a date four years and two months after he executed a final receipt, and two years and five months after he and his wife had been in communication with Strick concerning reinstatement of compensation.

The compensation authorities properly treated the claimant's application as a petition to set aside a final receipt. The employer and its carrier defended on the ground that the petition was not timely filed. The referee concluded that the bar of the statute had been removed by the employer's representations of ineligibility in June 1964 and awarded compensation. The Workmen's Compensation Board reversed and the court below affirmed the Board. We affirm the court.

The time for filing a petition to set aside a final receipt is found at Section 434 of The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P. L. 736, as amended, 77 P. S. § 1001: "A final receipt, given by an employe or dependent entitled to compensation under a compensation agreement or award, shall be prima facie evidence of the termination of the employer's liability to pay compensation under such agreement, notice or award: Provided, however, that the board or a referee designated by the board may, at any time within two years from the date to which payments have been made, set aside a final receipt upon petition filed with the board if it be conclusively proved that all disability due to the accident in fact had not terminated."

Here quoted as unamended by the Acts of February 8, 1972, P. L. ___, No. 12 and of March 29, 1972, P. L. ___, No. 61.

Obviously, Mr. Kushner's application filed in November 1966 was too late if the two year period commenced to run when he executed the receipt in September 1962. He contends, however, that the representations of the employer by its clerk in June 1964 should estop the employer from pleading the two year limitation. He relies on the cases of Guy v. Stoecklein Baking Company, 133 Pa. Super. 38, 1 A.2d 839 (1938); Rowles v. State Workmen's Insurance Fund, 141 Pa. Super. 193, 14 A.2d 551 (1940); Angermier v. Hubley Manufacturing Company, 206 Pa. Super. 422, 213 A.2d 171 (1972); and Iwaskewycz v. United States Steel Corporation, 7 Pa. Commw. 211, 298 A.2d 62 (1972). These authorities, however, hold only that the employer may not plead the statutory limitation where it has intentionally or unintentionally caused the employe to believe that compensation would be paid and that he, the employe, need not pursue the claim. See also, Palmer v. City of Pittsburgh and Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 9 Pa. Commw. 526, 308 A.2d 179 (1973).

Further, Mr. Kushner did not file his petition until more than two years after the employer's activities which he contends extended the two year limitation. Mucha v. Bayard Co., Inc., 177 Pa. Super. 138, 108 A.2d 925 (1954) holds that where the declarations and conduct of the employer should estop the employer, the claimant must nevertheless file within the statutory time limitation after the declarations or conduct relied upon.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Kushner v. Strick Trailer Co.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Nov 8, 1973
312 A.2d 471 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1973)
Case details for

Kushner v. Strick Trailer Co.

Case Details

Full title:Lucas Kushner, Appellant v. Strick Trailer Company and Continental…

Court:Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Nov 8, 1973

Citations

312 A.2d 471 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1973)
312 A.2d 471

Citing Cases

W.C.A.B. v. Pa. Workmens Ins

" 8 Pa. Commw. at 65-68, 301 A.2d at 120-121. Turning finally to the subject of the asserted untimeliness of…

Tarnoski v. Kanarr Corp.

In such a situation, the sixteen month limitation period is deemed to run from the time of the last conduct…