Opinion
Argued February 7, 1975
March 25, 1975.
Workmen's compensation — Limitation of action — The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, Act 1915, June 2, P.L. 736 — Misconduct of employer — Confusion of employe.
1. An employer who misled an injured employe and lulled him into a false sense of security may be precluded from raising the bar of the statute of limitations established in The Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, Act 1915, June 2, P.L. 736, but, where the record reveals no such misconduct by the employer but only that the employe may have been confused as to his rights, a workmen's compensation claim is barred if not timely filed. [159-60]
Argued February 7, 1975, before Judges KRAMER, ROGERS and BLATT, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 970 C.D. 1974, from the Order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board in case of Violet Popatek v. City of Pittsburgh, No. A-68088.
Petition with Department of Labor and Industry for workmen's compensation benefits. Petition dismissed. Petitioner appealed to the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board. Dismissal affirmed. Petitioner appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
S.W. Elovitz, with him Lipsitz, Nassau, Schwartz Evans, for appellant.
Bernice Hummert, Assistant City Solicitor, with her James N. Diefenderfer, for appellees.
This is an appeal by Victor Popatek (Popatek) from an order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Board), dated June 27, 1974, which affirmed the referee's dismissal of Popatek's claim for workmen's compensation.
Popatek was employed by the City of Pittsburgh (City) as a skilled laborer, when on March 11, 1971, he slipped on a curb and injured his knee. Popatek filed a claim for workmen's compensation on June 7, 1973. The City filed an answer alleging that Popatek's claim is barred by the statute of limitations. A hearing was held before a referee on December 20, 1973, and on that same day the referee dismissed Popatek's claim, holding that it was barred by the statute of limitations. Popatek appealed to the Board, which affirmed the referee's dismissal.
See section 315 of the Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P. S. § 602 (Supp. 1974-1975). At the time of Popatek's accident the applicable statute of limitations was sixteen months, but since that time section 315 has been amended to provide for a two-year statute of limitations. Popatek's claim was filed approximately 27 months after his accident.
In his appeal to this Court, Popatek contends that the City lulled him into a false sense of security and, therefore, it should not be permitted to raise the bar of the statute of limitations. See M. Gordon Sons, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, 14 Pa. Commw. 288, 321 A.2d 396 (1974).
We have carefully reviewed the record in this case, and we find no merit in Popatek's contention. The record indicates that Popatek may have been confused about his rights, and that he may have made an ineffective attempt to file a claim for compensation, but there is absolutely nothing in this record which would indicate that the City in any way misled Popatek or in any way lulled him into a false sense of security. The Board correctly concluded that Popatek's claim is barred by the statute of limitations and we must affirm. We therefore
ORDER
AND NOW, this 25th day of March, 1975, the order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, dated June 27, 1974, dismissing the claim petition of Victor Popatek, is hereby affirmed.