No, 12902
I N T E SUPREME C U T OF THE STATE O MONTANA
H OR F
1975
ABE KLEIN,
Claimant and Respondent,
INDEPENDENT WHOLESALE ASSOCIATED
GROCERS, and
STATE INSURANCE FUND,
Defendants and Appellants.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Robert Wilson, Judge p r e s i d i n g ,
Counsel of Record :
For A p p e l l a n t s :
H a r r i s , Jackson and Utick, Helena, Montana
Andrew J, Utick argued, Helena, Montana
For Respondent :
F i l l n e r and Snyder, B i l l i n g s , Montana
Charles E. Snyder argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana
-
Submitted: A p r i l 7, 1975
,jlvi % i975
Decided :
Filed : JiJI 8
- -- 2
Mr. Justice Wesley Castles delivered the Opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered in the district
court, Yellowstone County, reversing a decision of the Workmen's
Compensation Division and entering judgment for payment of
workmen's compensation benefits.
After a hearing before the Workmen's Compensation Division
(hereinafter referred to as the Division) on September 12, 1973,
wherein claimant Abe Klein sought workmen's compensation based
upon his claim filed with the Division some three years and seven
months after the date of his accident, the Division found claimant
entitled to compensation; set the award; and then denied the com-
pensation for failure to submit his claim within the statutory
one year period set forth in section 92-601, R.C.M. 1947.
The district court reversed the Division's order and
awarded compensation at the rate of 62 1/2% of the claimant's
wage loss up to a statutory maximum of $46 per week and remanded
the case to the Division for a determination of claimant's actual
wage loss.
On or about June 23, 1967, while in the employ of Independ-
ent Wholesale Associated Grocers as a mechanic, claimant suffered
an on the job injury. The employer was insured under Plan I11
of the Montana Workmen's Compensation Act, the insurer was the
State Insurance Fund. Claimant has an eleventh grade education.
His work experience is in the area of heavy duty mechanics and
evidence at the hearing revealed claimant is now unable to do this
type of work.
After his injury claimant continued to work at his job
as a mechanic, losing only two or three days of work, until his
employment was terminated on February 28, 1970.
The Division r e c e i v e d a t i t s o f f i c e i n Helena, f o u r days
following t h e a c c i d e n t , t h e a t t e n d i n g p h y s i c i a n ' s f i r s t r e p o r t s e n t
i n by D r . Gary V. Dols, a c h i r o p r a c t o r , d e s c r i b i n g c l a i m a n t ' s i n -
11
jury a s a lumbar s a c r a l s t r a i n " and g i v i n g t h e d a t e and d e t a i l s
of t h e a c c i d e n t . D r . Dols a l s o s e n t i n p e r i o d i c medical r e p o r t s and
medical b i l l s . A f i l e number was a s s i g n e d t o c l a i m a n t ' s c a s e .
D r . Dols i n d i c a t e d c l a i m a n t would l o s e t h r e e t o f i v e days of work
and t h e r e would b e no permanent d i s a b i l i t y . Within 30 days of
t h e a c c i d e n t t h e D i v i s i o n a l s o r e c e i v e d t h e employer's f i r s t
r e p o r t of i n j u r y i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e t y p e of
a c c i d e n t and i n j u r y and t h e wages earned by claimant a t t h e time
of t h e accident.
O October 30, 1967, t h e D i v i s i o n s e n t t h i s l e t t e r t o
n
claimant :
"October 30, 1967
"Re: Accident --- 8944-C-52--Abe Klein
"Abe Klein
1204 Hamey Drive
B i l l i n g s , Montana
"Dear S i r :
"Notice h a s been given t h a t you have had an
i n j u r y covered by t h e Workmen's Compensation Act.
I f t h i s i s t r u e , you may p r o t e c t your r i g h t s by
u s i n g t h e enclosed blank t o make a c l a i m f o r com-
pensation.
"PLEASE F L O THESE INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY.
OL W
Write p l a i n l y w i t h i n k o r t y p e w r i t e r .
Give t h e f a c t s w i t h p a r t i c u l a r c a r e t o
describe the accident i t s e l f f u l l y .
S t a t e e x a c t l y t h e days p h y s i c a l l y d i s a b l e d
and t h e amount of wages--in f i g u r e s - - l o s t
f o r each of t h e s e days.
Be s u r e t o e n t e r t h e b i r t h d a t e s (month,day,
y e a r ) of dependent c h i l d r e n , s i g n t h e c l a i m
and show your c o r r e c t m a i l i n g a d d r e s s .
The law provides t h a t you must f i l e your c l a i m
w i t h i n ONE YEAR a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t a l i n j u r y .
F a i l u r e t o do s o w i l l b a r you from r e c e i v i n g
compensation.
Under t h e law, you a r e e n t i t l e d t o h o s p i t a l and
medical b e n e f i t s and i f you l o s e wages, compensation
payable every two weeks. For f u r t h e r information
you may w r i t e t o t h e Board a t any time,
II Very t r u l y yours,
It
/s / Margaret Condon
S e c r e t a r y . I1
A Form 54 was enclosed, t h e form used by t h e Division f o r t h e
employee t o make a c l a i m f o r compensation.
Claimant on December 28, 1967, on t h e back of t h e l e t t e r
s e n t by t h e D i v i s i o n , responded t o t h e Division:
11
Gentlemen: I was o f f work 4 days due t o a c c i d e n t
mentioned. I f I ' m a p p l i c a b l e f o r Compensation
p l e a s e n o t i f y , & I w i l l . f i l l o u t form r e c e i v e d .
h hank you,
" / s / Abe Klein
1204 Karney D r .
F i l e #8944-C-52.
I n response t o c l a i m a n t ' s l e t t e r of December 28, 1967,
t h e D i v i s i o n s e n t t h i s correspondence t o claimant:
"January 9 , 1968
"Re: Accident 8944-C-52 - Abe Klein
"Mr. Abe Klein
1204 Harney Drive
B i l l i n g s , Montana
e ear M r . Klein:
II
Regarding your r e c e n t n o t e i n response t o our
mailing o f a c l a i m f o r Compensation f o r your completion
you should be advised t h a t was merely s e n t t o you f o r
p r o t e c t i o n i n t h e event t h a t you may i n c u r l a t e r problems
a s a r e s u l t of your June 23 i n j u r y . A s you a r e aware D r .
Dols has r e f e r r e d you t o D r . Perry Berg and i n d i c a t e d
i n r e p o r t s t o u s t h a t he f e e l s t h a t you may have a d i s c
involvement which could e v e n t u a l l y cause d i s a b i l i t y and
we t h e r e f o r e f e e l t h a t you should complete t h i s form
a t your convenience and r e t u r n although no compensation
b e n e f i t s would be due a t t h i s time.
"If you d e s i r e any f u r t h e r c l a r i f i c a t i o n i n t h i s
r e g a r d I suggest you c a l l our F i e l d R e p r e s e n t a t i v e who
l i v e s i n B i l l i n g s , M r . Harold Winfield. I'
The l e t t e r was signed by J. J. Carden, Claims Manager f o r t h e
Division.
Claimant d i d n o t f i l l i n Form 54. He d i d , however, c o n t a c t
M r . Winfield, who v i s i t e d t h e claimant on May 14, 1968, and a u t h o r i z e d
a 30 day treatment p e r i o d w i t h D r . Dols. Subsequently, on o r about
June 1 5 , 1968, about e i g h t days b e f o r e t h e e x p i r a t i o n of t h e c l a i m
f i l i n g p e r i o d , M r . Winfield a g a i n c o n t a c t e d claimant and gave him
a n o t h e r Form 54 and explained t h a t such form had t o b e f i l e d w i t h i n
one y e a r of t h e a c c i d e n t . He cautioned claimant t h a t t h e f i l i n g
period was about t o e x p i r e ; and advised claimant t o f i l e t h e form
i n o r d e r t o p r o t e c t h i s r i g h t t o compensation i n t h e event h i s con-
d i t i o n worsened.
O January 1 9 , 1971, claimant f i l e d f o r compensation.
n
The S t a t e Insurance Fund paid medical b e n e f i t s t o t a l i n g $174, which
r e p r e s e n t s a l l medical b i l l s submitted on t h e c l a i m which were
i n c u r r e d w i t h i n t h r e e y e a r s of t h e a c c i d e n t .
O September 12, 1973, h e a r i n g was h e l d t o determine
n
c l a i m a n t ' s r i g h t t o compensation. O January 21, 1974, t h e
n
D i v i s i o n adopted f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law t h a t
e s t a b l i s h e d t h e c l a i m a n t s u f f e r e d a compensable "lumbar s a c r a l
s t r a i n 1 ' ; t h a t due t o h i s wage l o s s claimant was e n t i t l e d t o maximum
temporary b e n e f i t s of 62 112% of h i s wages o r a s t a t u t o r y maximum of
$46 per week, and permanent p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y compensation b e n e f i t s
of 62 112% of h i s wage l o s s , o r a s t a t u t o r y maximum of $36 p e r week
under t h e a p p l i c a b l e amendment i n e f f e c t a t t h e time of h i s a c c i -
dent. The Division f u r t h e r found t h a t c l a i m a n t f a i l e d t o f i l e a
c l a i m f o r compensation, Form 54, w i t h i n t h e s t a t u t o r y p e r i o d of
one year a s r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 92-601, R.C.M. 1947. From t h o s e
f i n d i n g s of f a c t , t h e Division concluded:
"That t h e c l a i m a n t , Abe Klein, f a i l e d t o submit a
Claim f o r Compensation, form #54, w i t h i n t h e s t a t u t o r y
one year p e r i o d a s commanded by s e c t i o n 92-601 and I1
f o r t h i s r e a s o n , h i s claim must b e and i s hereby denied.
O claimant's appeal t o t h e d i s t r i c t court t h e matter
n
was submitted on t h e t r a n s c r i p t from t h e Division and no new e v i -
dence was o f f e r e d .
On September 27, 1974, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s
f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law, r e v e r s i n g t h e workmen's
Compensation Division. I n i t s conclusions of law, t h e d i s t r i c t
court said:
"1, The l e t t e r of claimant d a t e d December 1 8 , 1967,
signed by c l a i m a n t and n o t r e q u i r i n g o a t h , presented
t h e ' c l a i m ' of claimant t o t h e d i v i s i o n w i t h i n t h e
meaning of R.C.M. 1947, Section 92-418.
"2. Even i f t h e Division d i d n o t c o n s i d e r t h e December
28, 1967 l e t t e r a ' c l a i m ' , t h e d i v i s i o n knowing t h e e x t e n t
of c l a i m a n t ' s i n j u r y , had t h e duty t o f u l l y a d v i s e t h e
claimant and t o s e e t o i t t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s r i g h t s were
p r o t e c t e d ; t h i s was p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e when t h e D i v i s i o n
had n o t i f i e d c l a i m a n t t h a t he could complete t h e form
54 a t h i s convenience and t h a t he was n o t e n t i t l e d t o
compensation a t t h a t time. That claimant d i d n o t under-
s t a n d , o r was n o t f u l l y a d v i s e d , of t h e importance o r
purpose of t h e form 54 i s obvious from t h e f a c t t h a t
he d i d n o t complete one. By f a i l i n g t o p r o t e c t c l a i m a n t ' s
r i g h t s under t h e law, t h e D i v i s i o n i s e q u i t a b l y estopped
from l a t e r denying compensation t o claimant. I 1
The Division a p p e a l s from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s judgment.
The only i s s u e b e f o r e t h i s Court i s whether o r n o t c l a i m a n t ' s
l e t t e r t o t h e D i v i s i o n , d a t e d December 28, 1967, c o n s t i t u t e s a
c l a i m w i t h i n t h e meaning of s e c t i o n 92-601, R.C.M. 1947, b e f o r e
amendment i n 1973. W f i n d t h a t i t does n o t .
e
Upon a p p e a l , t h e presumption i s t h a t t h e D i v i s i o n decided
t h e c a s e c o r r e c t l y . Moffett v. Bozeman Canning Co., 95 Mont. 347,
26 P.2d 973. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s j u s t i f i e d i n r e v e r s i n g t h e
f i n d i n g s of t h e Division o n l y where t h e r e e x i s t s a c l e a r preponderance
of t h e evidence a g a i n s t t h e ~ i v i s i o n ' sf i n d i n g s . Meznarich v.
Republic Coal Co., 101 Mont. 78, 53 P.2d 82; Beatty v. Wellman Power
and Gas, I n c . , 812792, opinion handed down J u l y 8 , 1975, Mon t .
S e c t i o n 92-601 i s a n o t i c e s t a t u t e which then provided:
11
I n c a s e of p e r s o n a l i n j u r y o r d e a t h , a l l c l a i m s s h a l l
be f o r e v e r b a r r e d u n l e s s p r e s e n t e d i n w r i t i n g under o a t h
t o t h e employer, t h e i n s u r e r , o r t h e board a s t h e c a s e
may be, w i t h i n twelve months from t h e d a t e of t h e happening
of t h e a c c i d e n t , e i t h e r by t h e claimant o r someone l e g a l l y
a u t h o r i z e d t o a c t f o r him i n h i s b e h a l f . "
Section 92-117, R.C.M. 1947, provides t h a t t h e D i v i s i o n
s h a l l p r i n t t h e forms n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e
Workmen's Compensation Act. Rule 10 of t h e Rules of Procedure of t h e
D i v i s i o n provides t h a t every claim f o r compensation s h a l l b e i n i -
t i a t e d by f i l i n g of Form 54.
The f a c t t h a t claimant f a i l e d t o p r o p e r l y complete and
f i l e Form 54 i s n o t i n d i s p u t e . This he f a i l e d t o do a f t e r he
was given no l e s s than t h r e e such Form 5 4 ' s and was asked by t h e
D i v i s i o n t o complete t h e form each time,
Claimant argues t h a t h i s l e t t t e r d a t e d December 28, 1967,
was s u f f i c i e n t n o t i c e w i t h i n t h e requirements o f s e c t i o n 92-601.
With t h a t argument t h i s Court cannot a g r e e . Claimant s p e c i f i c a l l y
states in his letter:
" I f I ' m a p p l i c a b l e f o r Compensation, p l e a s e
n o t i f y , & I w i l l f i l l out form r e c e i v e d . 11
Obviously, claimant d i d n o t i n t e n d h i s l e t t e r t o be h i s n o t i c e f o r
c l a i m , f o r i f he had s o regarded i t , he would n o t have made r e f e r e n c e
t o f i l l i n g o u t a Form 54. By s t a t i n g t h a t i f he was "applicable"
he would f i l l out t h e form r e c e i v e d , he obviously understood t h e
proper procedure t o follow.
Claimant argues t h e Workmen's Compensation Act must b e
i n t e r p r e t e d l i b e r a l l y , c i t i n g Murphy v. Anaconda Company, 133 Mont.
198, 321 P.2d 1094, and o t h e r c a s e s . There i s no q u e s t i o n b u t t h a t
t h e Act must be l i b e r a l l y i n t e r p r e t e d . W e c a n n o t , however, l i b e r a l l y
c o n s t r u e a s t a t u t e t o t h e p o i n t of r e p e a l i n g i t . When no e f f o r t
was made by claimant t o comply w i t h t h e s t a t u t e , i t w i l l n o t do t o
have claimant t u r n around and attempt t o g e t i n under t h e gun by
having t h i s Court l i b e r a l l y c o n s t r u e t h e s t a t u t e i n h i s f a v o r .
Claimant argues f u r t h e r t h a t t h e Division i s e q u i t a b l y
estopped from denying h i s claim. W f i n d no m e r i t i n t h a t argument.
e
The D i v i s i o n d i d e v e r y t h i n g i n i t s power t o g e t c l a i m a n t t o comply
w i t h t h e s t a t u t e , s h o r t of completing t h e form i t s e l f , which i t i s
n o t r e q u i r e d t o do. Claimant argues t h e l e t t e r from M r . Carden
s t a t i n g claimant could complete t h e form a t h i s l e i s u r e misled
claimant i n t o b e l i e v i n g t h e r e was no r e a l h u r r y i n completing t h e
form. I f M r . Carden's l e t t e r had been t h e only communication be-
tween c l a i m a n t and t h e D i v i s i o n , t k r e might b e some b a s i s t o t h a t
argument. However, i n l i g h t of t h e f a c t claimant r e c e i v e d a n o t i c e
from t h e Division e x p l a i n i n g t h e y e a r d e a d l i n e , and i n l i g h t of
t h e f a c t t h a t M r . Winfield p e r s o n a l l y warned claimant t h a t h i s time
f o r f i l i n g was running o u t , t h e r e i s j u s t no foundation t o support
t h a t argument.
The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d .
Justice \
W Concur:
e
6
Hon. E. Gardner Brownlee, D i s t r i c t
Judge, s i t t i n g f o r Chief J u s t i c e James
T. Harrison.
M r . J u s t i c e Gene B . ~ a dissenting:
l ~
I dissent, The g e n e r a l o v e r r i d i n g reason f o r a n o t i c e
s t a t u t e , such a s t h e one i n q u e s t i o n h e r e , i s t o prevent i n j u s t i c e .
That i s t o prevent t h e f i l i n g of s t a l e o r f r a u d u l e n t claims f a r
removed from t h e time of t h e claimed i n j u r y s o a s t o put t h e
employer o r i n s u r e r i n an untenable p o s i t i o n t o defend o r i n -
vestigate. Secondarily, t h e r e must a l s o be r u l e s and o r d e r l y
procedure and f i n a l i t y i n a l l m a t t e r s , The r e s u l t reached by
t h e m a j o r i t y h e r e produces a h a r s h and u n j u s t r e s u l t upon a
claimant w i t h an undisputed, honest c l a i m which produced a s e v e r e
disability.
S e c t i o n 92-601, R.C.M. 1947, i s a n o t i c e s t a t u t e which
then provided:
II
I n c a s e of p e r s o n a l i n j u r y o r d e a t h , a l l claims
s h a l l be f o r e v e r b a r r e d u n l e s s presented i n w r i t i n g
under o a t h t o t h e employer, t h e i n s u r e r , o r t h e
board, a s t h e c a s e may b e , w i t h i n twelve months
from t h e d a t e of t h e happening of t h e a c c i d e n t ,
e i t h e r by t h e c l a i m a n t o r someone l e g a l l y a u t h o r i z e d
t o a c t f o r him i n h i s b e h a l f . "
The Division a r g u e s i t has t h e r i g h t under s e c t i o n 92-
117, R.C,M. 1947, t o determine which forms a r e t o b e used t o
promote t h e e f f i c i e n t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e Workmen's Compensation
Act. Rule 10 of t h e Rules of Procedure of t h e Division pro-
v i d e s , i n p a r t , t h a t "Every c l a i m f o r compensation s h a l l be i n i -
II
t i a t e d by f i l i n g of form 54, claim f o r compensation. Therefore,
i t a r g u e s , t h e only v a l i d c l a i m form i s Form No. 54, c l a i m f o r
compensat,ion o r a communication of s i m i l a r c o n t e n t .
There i s no doubt t h e i d e a l s i t u a t i o n f o r t h e D i v i s i o n
would be t o have every form f i l l e d o u t p r o p e r l y w i t h t h e c o r r e c t
information, d a t e d , s i g n e d , and f i l e d on time. But r e a l i s t i c -
a l l y t h i s can n o t always b e done. Forms a r e a c o n s t a n t source
of confusion. The e n t i t l e m e n t of "Form 54" i s a source of con-
f u s i o n i n t h a t i t i s t i t l e d "Claim f o r omp pens at ion", a l t h o u g h
s e c t i o n 92-601 r e q u i r e s t h a t a c l a i m be f i l l e d o u t w i t h i n a y e a r
of t h e a c c i d e n t , b e f o r e many i n j u r e d persons a r e aware t h e i r i n j u r y
e n t i t l e s them t o compensation, such a s t h e i n s t a n t c a s e .
FJorkmenls compensation d e a l s with many i n d i v i d u a l s i n a l l
walks of l i f e ; n o t a l l a r e s o p h i s t i c a t e d , n o r a r e a l l h i g h l y
educated, The Montana l e g i s l a t u r e has mandated, and t h i s Court
has h e l d , t h a t t h e Workmen's Compensation Act must be l i b e r a l l y
construed i n favor of t h e claimant. Section 92-838, R.C.M. 1947;
Grief v. I n d u s t r i a l Accident Fund, 108 Mont, 519, 526, 93 P.2d. 961;
Murphy v. Anaconda Company, 133 Mont, 198, 321 P.2d 1094, 1097.
Section 92-601, R.C.M. 1947, does not s t a t e t h a t Form 54
must be submitted t o t h e Division. It merely r e q u i r e s t h a t a claim
i n w r i t i n g be made under oath. This Court i n Chisholm v. Voca-
t i o n a l School f o r G i r l s , 103 Mont. 503, 507, 64 P.2d 838, held t h a t
t h e t e c h i n i c a l requirement of t h e n o t i c e t o be given under oath
i s n o t required. Therefore, t h e only requirement of s e c t i o n 92-
601 i s t h a t w r i t t e n n o t i c e be given.
Here, claimant wrote t o t h e Division i n r e p l y t o a l e t t e r
from t h e Division about h i s accident. He acknowledged t h a t he
had been i n j u r e d ; t h a t he had been o f f work; and, i f "applicable"
f o r compensation he would l i k e t o be n o t i f i e d . The Division was
f u l l y aware t h a t an a c c i d e n t had occurred and t h e d e t a i l s of t h e
accident by v i r t u e of t h e employer and medical c o n t a c t s s e t f o r t h
heretofore. Y e t , i n answer t o c l a i m a n t ' s r e q u e s t f o r advice,
t h e Division manager advised t h a t claimant was n o t e l i g i b l e f o r a
claim a t p r e s e n t , b u t t h a t he should f i l l out form 54 a t h i s
convenience.
The Division should have known t h a t claimant d i d n o t f u l l y
understand t h e importance of f i l i n g form 54, because he had f a i l e d
t o do so. Under such circumstances i t must a c t t o p r o t e c t c l a i m a n t ' s
r i g h t s by helping him complete t h e form, i f necessary. By f a i l i n g
s o t o do t h e Division i s estopped from denying claimant h i s claim,
f o r having f a i l e d t o f i l e a p a r t i c u l a r form,
I f t h e r e was any necessary information d e s i r e d by t h e
Division n o t contained i n c l a i m a n t ' s l e t t e r , t h e physician's r e p o r t ,
and t h e employer's r e p o r t , a l l of which t h e Division had i n i t s
f i l e s , M r . Winfield, t h e f i e l d a g e n t f o r t h e D i v i s i o n , could have
e a s i l y a c q u i r e d i t on one of h i s s e v e r a l v i s i t s w i t h c l a i m a n t .
Winfield t e s t i f i e d t h a t when claims have inadequate i n f o r m a t i o n ,
i t i s customary f o r him t o f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t e .
T h i s i s n o t t o s a y t h a t t h e requirements of t h e D i v i s i o n
o r t h e s t a t u t e s can b e ignored n o r t h a t t h e Division must f i l e
t h e r e q u i r e d form f o r c l a i m a n t s i n a l l c a s e s . I n Yurkovich v.
I n d u s t r i a l Accident Board, 132 Mont. 77, 314 P.2d 866, t h i s Court
h e l d t h a t i t was n o t t h e duty of t h e Board t o go o u t and s o l i c i t
c l a i m s and each c a s e must b e determined on i t s own f a c t s , circum-
s t a n c e s and t h e law a p p l i c a b l e . Y e t , i t i s t h e d u t y o f t h e Board
t o f u l l y a d v i s e t h e i n j u r e d workman when he comes t o t h e Board and
a s k s f o r information. The Court f u r t h e r h e l d t h a t t h i s placed t h e
Board i n a p o s i t i o n o f t r u s t and i t was o b l i g a t e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e
on i t s own, i f n e c e s s a r y , t o determine e n t i t l e m e n t t o compensation
by t h e i n j u r e d workman. F a i l u r e t o do s o i n Yurkovich r e s u l t e d
i n t h e Court denying t h e Board, by e s t o p p e l , t h e b e n e f i t of t h e
s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s .
Here, t h e D i v i s i o n a r g u e s t h e c l a i m a n t was n o t misled,
a s i s r e q u i r e d t o invoke e q u i t a b l e e s t o p p e l , and c i t e s numerous
c a s e s wherein an i n s u r a n c e company, a d o c t o r , a company lawyer, a
c i t y c l e r k and mayor a c t i v e l y misinformed t h e i n j u r e d workman and
e s t o p p e l r e s u l t e d and would u r g e t h i s f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n a s a
c o n d i t i o n precedent t o invoking t h e d o c t r i n e . I t r e c i t e s language
from Ricks v. Teslow Consolidated, 162 Mont. 469, 512 P.2d 1304, t o
support i t s position. W a g r e e w i t h t h e law as s t a t e d i n Ricks
e .
It merely r e s t a t e s t h a t t h e d o c t r i n e w i l l be a p p l i e d i f t h e r e have
been a f f i r m a t i v e a c t s which prevent t h e claimant from f i l i n g o r l e a d
him t o b e l i e v e he need n o t do so. The f a c t s h e r e s t i l l must c o n t r o l
t h e r e s u l t reached i n t h e p r e s e n t cause. The language o f Levo v.
General-Shea-Morrison, 128 Mont. 570, 576, 280 P.2d 1086, c i t e d t o
t h e Court by t h e D i v i s i o n , i s p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p r o p r i a t e :
¸Ÿ he d o c t r i n e of e q u i t a b l e e s t o p p e l i s a f l e x i b l e
one, founded i n e q u i t y and good c o n s c i e n c e ; i t s
o b j e c t i s t o p r e v e n t a p a r t y from t a k i n g an uncon-
s c i o n a b l e advantage of h i s own wrong w h i l e a s s e r t i n g
h i s s t r i c t l e g a l r i g h t . Seemingly t h e only s t r i c t
l e g a l r i g h t t h a t we a r e asked t o a d h e r e t o i s t h e
s t a t u t e which was passed s o l e l y f o r t h e b e n e f i t of
t h e employer and t h e i n s u r a n c e c a r r i e r , i . e . , t h e
Statute of L i m i t a t i o n s . * J;
"J; A J C e r t a i n l y , i f t h e r e i s any circumstance wherein
;
t h e d o c t r i n e of e q u i t a b l e e s t o p p e l should be extended,
i t i s i n m a t t e r s concerning an i n j u r e d workman, where
t h e l a w i t s e l f s a y s t h a t t h e Workmen's Compensation
Act s h a l l be c o n s t r u e d l i b e r a l l y . I I
The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t should be a f f i r m e d .
- d %
dJustice.
- - I - " - - - - - - - - - -
/
Lvir. J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell d i s s e n t i n g :
I d i s s e n t and concur i n t h e f o r e g o i n g d i s s e n t
of M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly.
Justice.