Altman v. Williams Furniture Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Altman v. Williams Furniture Co.

156 S.E.2d 433, 250 S.C. 98, 1967 S.C. LEXIS 167

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedAugust 10, 1967

Docket18691

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 156 S.E.2d 433 (Altman v. Williams Furniture Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Altman v. Williams Furniture Co., 156 S.E.2d 433, 250 S.C. 98, 1967 S.C. LEXIS 167 (S.C. 1967).

Pincite

Opinions

Brailsford, Justice.

I respectfully dissent because, in my judgment, there was sufficient evidence to sustain the finding of the South Carolina Industrial Commission that the employer was estopped from asserting the failure of the employee to file a claim within one year as a bar to his right to compensation. In several cases, which are cited in the opinion of the Chief Justice, we have held that estoppel, to assert failure to file on time as a defense to a claim, arises from conduct of the employer which reasonably tends to mislead the employee, whether intentionally or no,t, to believe that his claim is recognized as compensable and will [100]*100be taken care of by the employer whether or not it is timely filed. In this case, it may be inferred that the employee was misled, whether intentionally or not, into believing that he had no cqmpensable injury for which a claim should be filed. According to the employee’s testimony, the company doctor and personnel manager told him that there was nothing wrong with him and to go back to wo,rk. In so doing they concealed, whether intentionally or nqt, a material fact which it was their duty to disclose. It is reasonable to suppose that if the X-ray findings as to the condition of the employee’s back, especially in the absence of any history of back pain, had been disclosed to him, he would have sought independent medical and legal advice, and that a claim would have been filed in time. Persistence in the representation to the employee that nqthing was wrong with him, and in the concealment of the X-ray findings, should be held to estop the employer from asserting as a defense the employee’s delay in filing a claim. I wquld affirm the order appealed from.

This opinion was written as a dissent to the opinion drafted for the court by Chief Justice Moss. A majority of the court having concurred, it becomes the prevailing opinion. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Lewis and Bussey, JJ., concur. Moss, C. J., and Littlejohn, J., dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Brailsford, Justice.

I respectfully dissent because, in my judgment, there was sufficient evidence to sustain the finding of the South Carolina Industrial Commission that the employer was estopped from asserting the failure of the employee to file a claim within one year as a bar to his right to compensation. In several cases, which are cited in the opinion of the Chief Justice, we have held that estoppel, to assert failure to file on time as a defense to a claim, arises from conduct of the employer which reasonably tends to mislead the employee, whether intentionally or no,t, to believe that his claim is recognized as compensable and will [100]*100be taken care of by the employer whether or not it is timely filed. In this case, it may be inferred that the employee was misled, whether intentionally or not, into believing that he had no cqmpensable injury for which a claim should be filed. According to the employee’s testimony, the company doctor and personnel manager told him that there was nothing wrong with him and to go back to wo,rk. In so doing they concealed, whether intentionally or nqt, a material fact which it was their duty to disclose. It is reasonable to suppose that if the X-ray findings as to the condition of the employee’s back, especially in the absence of any history of back pain, had been disclosed to him, he would have sought independent medical and legal advice, and that a claim would have been filed in time. Persistence in the representation to the employee that nqthing was wrong with him, and in the concealment of the X-ray findings, should be held to estop the employer from asserting as a defense the employee’s delay in filing a claim. I wquld affirm the order appealed from.

This opinion was written as a dissent to the opinion drafted for the court by Chief Justice Moss. A majority of the court having concurred, it becomes the prevailing opinion. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Lewis and Bussey, JJ., concur. Moss, C. J., and Littlejohn, J., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 S.E.2d 433, 250 S.C. 98, 1967 S.C. LEXIS 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/altman-v-williams-furniture-co-sc-1967.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack