TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Garrity v. Home Indemnity Co.

GARRITY v. HOME INDEMNITY CO. OF NEW YORK

Garrity v. Home Indem. Co., 84 F.2d 484 (5th Cir. 1936)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 22, 1936
Docket
No. 8078
Judges
Sibley
Citations
84 F.2d 4841936 U.S. App. LEXIS 4513

Opinion of the Court — Sibley

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

SIBLEY, Circuit Judge.

Appellant’s claim for workmen’s compensation under the laws of Texas was denied mainly on the ground that he had filed his claim with the Industrial Accident Board too late. The statute reads on this point: “No proceeding for compensation for injury under this law shall be maintained * * * unless a claim for compensation with respect to such injury shall have been made within six months after the occurrence of same. * * * For good cause the board may, in meritorious cases, waive strict compliance with the foregoing limitations as to * * * the filing the claim before the board.” Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St.Tex. art. 8307, § 4a. The question here is whether good cause is shown for not filing claim sooner than fifteen months after the injury. The burden of alleging and proving good cause is on the claimant, and his showing must cover not only the first six months, but the whole time of his delay. Williamson v. Texas Indemnity Ins. Co. (Tex.Sup.) 90 S.W.(2d) 1088 . Physical and mental inability to file the claim was there indicated, and the claimant was relying on his employer to handle the matter for him as it had done before, resulting in a jury issue. The claimant here was not relying *485 on any one else, was not affected with any mental trouble, but had tuberculosis and was simply put on a rest cure in the hospital. During the first six months after the inhalation which he claims as an industrial accident he knew his condition was serious, and learned that his employer carried workmen’s compensation insurance. He had a son who was looking into it but the son died at an unstated time. He was able to go to the funeral, and at another time to vote. He also had a wife and grown daughter. He got his life insurance premium and taxes paid. A simple letter written by or for the claimant to the board would have served him. He finally, when no better off than he had been before, got a lawyer, with whom he was acquainted all the time, who filed the claim fifteen months after the alleged injury. We see only neglect and not real hindrance touching the claim. We agree with the trial judge a jury could not have properly found that good cause existed for delaying fifteen months to make it. See Amburn v. Employers’ Liability Assur. Corp. (C.C.A.) 77 F.(2d) 749 .

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1939: 119392026peak 1939 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Mayers v. Associated Indemnity Corp.108 F.2d 89 (5th Cir. 1939)

Most recent

  1. Mayers v. Associated Indemnity Corp.108 F.2d 89 (5th Cir. 1939)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Williamson v. Tex. Indem. Ins., 90 S.W.2d 1088 (Tex. 1936) 49
Amburn v. Employers' Liab. Assur. Corp., 77 F.2d 749 (5th Cir. 1935) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list