Newsletter Sign-up

Can a mechanic's dyslexia toll the statute of limitations for his claim?

A mechanic injured his back at work while lifting manhole covers. He requested medical treatment. His X-rays were normal, according to his doctor, and after seven weeks of physical therapy, he was at maximum medical improvement. An independent medical examiner opined that he had a partial permanent disability of 7.5 percent. The third-party administrator sent the mechanic a letter referencing an incorrect claim number, an incorrect name of the employer and an incorrect date of accident. The letter said that further medical treatment was unauthorized. The mechanic received three more checks from the third party administrator.

The mechanic filed a claim three years after his last check from the third party administrator. The employer argued that the claim was brought after the statute of limitations. The mechanic argued that he suffered from dyslexia and had limited reading and writing skills. School records confirmed the dyslexia and learning difficulties but showed he had an average IQ. The mechanic argued that the statute of limitations should be tolled under the "insanity clause" because his dyslexia "interfered with his ability to understand his legal rights." A New Jersey law allows tolling for a worker who becomes "insane" during the two-year period for a modification of an award.

The compensation judge found that the mechanic's claim was barred because more than two years elapsed since his last payment of benefits. The mechanic appealed.

Was the compensation judge correct in finding the mechanic's claim was barred?

A.No.The third party administrator's mistakes in its letter contributed to the mechanic's failure to file his claim within the two-year statute of limitations.

B.Yes.The mechanic did not "become insane" within the two-year period specified by the law.

C.No.The tolling provision that applied to modifications of benefits also applies to initial awards.

How the court ruled: B. In an unpublished opinion, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division held that the mechanic's claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Zito v. AIC, No. A-1070-10T2 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 09/26/11).

The court said that the two-year statute of limitations is a jurisdictional requirement. It explained that the "insanity clause" did not apply to the mechanic because he was filing an initial claim, not a modification. Also, he did not "become insane" during the two-year period because he was diagnosed with dyslexia as a child.

A is incorrect. The court explained that the mechanic did not argue that he relied on the statements in the third party administrator's letter. Also, the mechanic did not raise the argument before the compensation judge and could not raise it for the first time on appeal.

C is incorrect. The court explained that it could not "import the tolling provision" of the modification law to initial claims for benefits. The legislature did not include the "insanity clause" in the law for initial claims.

Editor's note: This feature is not intended as instructional material or to replace legal advice.

Read more at the WorkersComp Forum homepage.

December 8, 2011

Copyright 2011© LRP Publications