Gracie v. Koppers Co.

¹¹¹ Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal in a workmen’s compensation case is from a judgment entered upon a directed verdict, affirming a decision of the State Industrial Accident Commission, on the ground that the appellant had not filed his claim within one year from the beginning of his disability, as required by Code (1951), Art. 101, sec. 38. There is no contention that the failure to file was induced by fraud or under circumstances raising an estoppel. The injury occurred on January 5, 1951, and the claim was not filed until June 7, 1954.

The contention is that he is not barred because the causal connection between the disability and the accident was not brought home to him until April, 1954. The Commission had found that the claimant sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. There was no cross-appeal. On January 5, 1951, the appellant was employed by the appellee as an electrician.

While working on some cables he grounded a spud wrench. There was an intense flash, that burned his eyes and made them watery and sore, and he went to first aid for treatment. Drops were put in his eyes and he was given dark glasses to wear and sent back to work. On the following day he went to see Dr. Baylus, who was recommended by his foreman, but was not the regular company doctor.

On January 8, Dr. Baylus told him he had loss of vision due to the flash, and that “they appeared to be electric cataracts.” Dr. Baylus saw him on four or five other occasions, the last being on January 23. At that time Dr. Baylus told him he “didn’t believe that the accident caused the cataracts in my eye; that it was something that I had had”, and “that it was not caused by the accident.” His vision became progressively worse, although he lost no time from work. “From what Dr. Baylus told me, I didn’t believe I had a claim * * * I didn’t realize Koppers Company was responsible.” In cross-examination he was asked if there was not a question in his mind as to a causal connection between the cataracts and the accident. He replied: “There would have been a question in anybody’s mind when a doctor gives one report one day and another one two weeks ¹¹² later.” After several years, with periodic visits to Dr. Baylus, he decided to consult another doctor, because he was not satisfied. Dr. Scholz, of the Wilmer Institute, recommended an immediate operation on his right eye, and told him he felt that the injury had caused the cataracts.

Before January 5, 1951, his vision had been perfect and he never wore glasses. Dr. Baylus corroborated the claimant’s testimony. He testified that he was inclined to believe at first that the opacities in the lenses of the eyes were due to the flash, but later concluded that they were congenital. He told the claimant that he had changed his opinion.

In his report of January 23 to the Koppers Company he stated “that these lenticular opacities are congenital and there is no connection to his electric flash.” In his first report on January 6, he had stated that the incipient cataracts were the result of the electric flash. He was now inclined to believe that the cataracts were due to the flash. Dr. Scholz was definitely of that opinion. In Griffin v. Rustless Iron & Steel Co., 187 Md. 524 , the claimant sustained an injury to his eyes in an explosion in 1939, which seemed to respond to treatment.

However, his eyes troubled him and he was told by a doctor he consulted in 1941 that there was a film over his eyes, which was not ripe for removal. He consulted another doctor, who told him the same thing. Finally, after about five years had passed, he consulted Dr. Hurwitz, who told him he had cataracts, and suggested that there was a causal connection between the accident and the condition then present. After reviewing many decisions in other states, it was said (pp. 540, 541) that “the wording of the Maryland statute indicates that the period of limitation begins to run from the time when disability becomes, or should become, reasonably apparent.

And we hold that this does not mean the particular class of disability for which compensation is asked, but any disability (except that of a trivial nature) which arises from an accident and which eventually ripens into the class of disability for which compensation is claimed. * * * As soon as it becomes reasonably apparent, or should become reasonably apparent, to a workman that he has a compensable disability of any class from an accident (whether he ¹¹³ is working or not), he has the right to file a claim and the statute begins to run against him from that time. “Applying these views to the case before us, we find that the appellant in July and August, 1941, knew that he had a film over his eye. That of itself was sufficient to put him on notice that he had then a compensable disability and that he had a right to file a claim for it. He did not file a claim then, nor within one year from that date, and it becomes necessary for us to conclude that he was barred from so doing when he did finally file it in May, 1945.” The same rule that the period of limitations begins to run from the time when the disability becomes, or should become,