Robinson v. True Drilling Co.
This text of 641 P.2d 195 (Robinson v. True Drilling Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wyoming Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Appellant-claimant appeals from an order denying his worker’s compensation claim because it was barred by the statute of limitations,1 i.e., § 27-12-503(a), W.S.1977.2
[196]*196We affirm.
Appellant alleges his injury to have occurred during employment by appellee on an oil rig in Weston County in 1956. On May 22,1981, he filed an unsworn report of accident and claim for award in the District Court, Sixth Judicial District, County of Weston. On June 25,1981, he filed a sworn application and claim for award in the same court. In these filings, he recited that he had amnesia until the fall of 1978.
Appellant contends that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until four weeks to two months before May 22, 1981, the date upon which he filed his first claim. He says he was then first aware of the existence of a compensable injury. The only evidence in support of this contention was the following testimony of appellant:
“And then later the rest of it come back in and then more of it come back in and just — just about 2 months ago — no, it’s been about 4 weeks ago I was driving truck out in Wells, Nevada, and I had the first vivid recollection of that face, of that man across the tower from me that chased me up in the derrick.”
Although such testimony would probably be insufficient to support appellant’s claim even if it were the only testimony on the issue, other evidence in the case and other testimony by appellant are more than sufficient to support the district court’s finding that the statute of limitations began to run over one year before a claim was filed.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding of fact by the fact finder, we assume the evidence of the prevailing party to be true and disregard entirely the evidence of the unsuccessful party. Merritt v. McIntyre and McIntyre Garden Center and Greenhouse Company, Wyo., 613 P.2d 206 (1980); City of Rock Springs v. Police Protective Association, Wyo., 610 P.2d 975 (1980); Madrid v. Norton, Wyo., 596 P.2d 1108 (1979); Olson v. Federal American Partners, Wyo., 567 P.2d 710 (1977).
Assuming for the purpose of argument that appellant had amnesia which tolled the statute of limitations during the amnesia period, not only did the claims filed by appellant reflect a recovery from any amnesia to have occurred in the fall of 1978 — about two and one-half years before the filing of the claims, but his testimony at the hearing was to the same effect. He testified that he was given .an injection of cortisone into an injured foot in the fall of 1978, and “ * * * an hour and twenty minutes later my memory come back, the whole of it.” Again, he testified: “ * * * When they put the cortisone in there, that’s when my memory come back fully and wholly.” And again:
“THE COURT: And as I understand it, you started remembering these things back in 1978; is that right?
“MR. ROBINSON: Yes, right after the neurosurgery, 45, 50 minutes later. It was just like a cloud was removed from my memory bank. I remembered so much of it it was, you know, it’s like being born over or something.”
There was substantial evidence upon which the trial court could find appellant’s claim to have been barred by the one-year statute of limitations.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
641 P.2d 195, 1982 Wyo. LEXIS 304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-true-drilling-co-wyo-1982.