Adkins v. Weisner & American Insurance

Marbury, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The sole question raised on this appeal is whether the request of an employee for a hearing as to the nature and extent of his disability from an injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment is barred by the limitation provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Fred W. Adkins (employee or claimant) sustained an accidental injury to his back on September 11, 1958, while employed by Raymond A. Weisner. He filed a claim with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, and after a hearing on October 16, 1958, the Commission passed an “award of compensation” ordering the employer and his insurer, American Insurance Company, to pay the employee compensation for temporary total disability, the payments to begin as of September 15, 1958.

Subsequent to this, after another hearing was held on August 24, 1959, the Commission passed a “supplemental award of compensation” ordering the employer and his ⁴¹³ insurer to pay the employee compensation for permanent partial disability at the rate of $25 per week, payable weekly, beginning on July 26,1959, not to exceed the sum of $1875. The claimant petitioned the Commission on September 17, 1959, for a lump sum payment commuted from the weekly payments in accordance with Code (1957, 1964 Cum. Supp.), Article 101, Section 49. On September 28, the Commission ordered that $504.23 be converted from the closing weeks of compensation due the claimant and this amount paid to him without discount.

It was stipulated by the parties that as of April 20, 1960, all payments were made that were due under the permanent partial disability award of August 24, 1959. On May 2, 1960, the employee signed and filed with the Commission a statement of compensation paid, indicating the duration and amount of the benefits he had received. On October 2, 1963, the claimant filed a petition to reopen his case as to the nature and extent of his disability alleging that his physical condition as the result of his injury had become worse. The employer and insurance carrier, appellees, answered the