PACIFIC EMPLOYERS' INS. CO.
v.
OBERLECHNER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the evidence presented a jury question regarding good cause for the late filing of a workers' compensation claim under Texas law.
The appellee failed to file his workers' compensation claim within the six months required by Texas law, with proof of claim filed 14 months after the…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Texas Workmen'S Compensation Act cases and more on FLexlaw
WALLER, Circuit Judge.
This case involves only the question of whether or not the appellee showed good cause for his failure to file his claim with the Industrial Accident Board within the six months required by the Texas Workmen’s Compensation Law, Rev.Stat.Tex., Article 8307, Sec. 4a, Vernon’s Ann.Civ. St. Art. 8307, § 4a. Proof of his claim was not filed until 14 months after his alleged injury.
Appellant’s motion for a directed verdict, on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to file claim within the time required by the statute and had also failed to show good cause for his failure so to file, was overruled.’ The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
It has been thoroughly settled by decisions of the courts of Texas that the test as to whether or not an employee had shown good cause for his delay in filing a claim is whether or not he had prosecuted his claim for compensation with that degree of diligence that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances.1
Each case must he determined by its own facts and circumstances and since this is a case governed by State statutes and State decisions, it does not seem highly important for us to say more than that we think that the evidence in this case presented a question for the jury under the Texas decisions2 and that the lower Court did not err in so submitting it.
The judgment of the lower Court is affirmed.
45 Tex.Jur., Workmen’s Compensation, § 262, and cases cited in footnote 2 on p. 739.
See Consolidated Underwriters v. Pruitt, Tex.Civ.App., 180 S.W. 2d 461; Great American Ind. Co. v. Beaupre, Tex.Civ.App., 191 S.W. 2d 883; Royal Ind. Co. v. Earles, 5 Cir., 153 F. 2d 933.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morales v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 208 F.2d 218 (5th Cir. 1953)
-
Am. Motorists Ins. Co. v. Boortz, 197 F.2d 900 (5th Cir. 1952)
-
Wedel v. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 239 F.2d 302 (5th Cir. 1957)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Royal Indem. Co. v. Earles, 153 F.2d 933 (5th Cir. 1945)