Bracey v. Packard Elec. Div. General Motors Co., 55729

Citation476 So.2d 28
Decision Date18 September 1985
Docket NumberNo. 55729,55729
PartiesBetty G. BRACEY v. PACKARD ELECTRIC DIVISION, GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, a Self-Insurer.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi

Page 28

476 So.2d 28
Betty G. BRACEY
v.
PACKARD ELECTRIC DIVISION, GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, a Self-Insurer.
No. 55729.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Sept. 18, 1985.

Page 29

Charles I. Knauss, Jr., Paul Snow, Jackson, for appellant.

Leray McNamara, F. Hall Bailey, Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway, Jackson, for appellee.

Before PATTERSON, C.J., and PRATHER and SULLIVAN, JJ.

SULLIVAN, Justice, for the Court:

Betty G. Bracey made a worker's compensation claim against Packard Electric Division, General Motors Company, for a back injury. The administrative law judge found inter alia that Bracey failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that she sustained a compensable injury within the course and scope of her employment, and that she had not substantiated her claim by medical findings based upon full, complete and honest knowledge of the facts in the possession of the medical experts.

On February 16, 1984, the full Commission affirmed the order of the administrative law judge and the Commission stated that while the law favors a liberal interpretation, a claimant is still required to prove her claim by a fair preponderance of the evidence and to a legal certainty.

On May 25, 1984, the Circuit Court of Hinds County, Mississippi, affirmed this finding.

The gravamen of this appeal is appellant's claim that the Commission's order of affirmance stated that the appellant was required to prove her claim by a fair preponderance of the evidence and to a legal certainty, and that this language indicates that the Commission order was manifestly wrong.

It is well settled that the Commission is the finder of fact and if their findings are based on substantial evidence they will be affirmed. Olen Burrage Trucking Co., et al. v. Clarence Clyde Chandler, Deceased, Dependents of, 475 So.2d 437, 1985.

In our review, the language of the Commission's order, while inartfully drawn, simply restates the requirement that a recovery must be based upon reasonable probabilities and not mere possibilities. Burnley Shirt Corporation v. Simmons, 204 So.2d 451, 453 (Miss.1967).

In light of the testimony presented by this record, the administrative judge's findings and the Commission's affirmance of those findings were clearly supported by substantial evidence. Had the Circuit Court of Hinds County reversed the Commission, we would have been required from this record to find the Circuit Court in error. The Circuit Court, however, correctly

Page 30

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Smith v. Jackson Const. Co., 90-CC-0145
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • August 12, 1992
    ...therein); see also, Hardin's Bakeries v. Dependent of Harrell, 566 So.2d 1261, 1264 (Miss.1990) [citing Bracey v. Packard Elec. Div., Gen. Motors Co., 476 So.2d 28, 29 (Miss.1985), and Dunn, Mississippi Workers' Compensation Sec. 265 (3rd ed. 1982) Here we are reviewing the Circuit Court's ......
  • Ambrose v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • August 2, 2018
    ...defense effectively, and thus deprived him of a fair trial. Accordingly, this case must be reversed and remanded for a new trial. Hall , 476 So.2d at 28.¶ 64. The State argues that, unlike Suan and McFarland , where the witnesses had not been prosecuted, the State actually pursued charges a......
  • R.C. Petroleum, Inc. v. Hernandez
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • January 10, 1990
    ...alleged, the claimant bears the burden to prove by a "clear preponderance" each element of the claim. See Bracey v. Packard Elec. Div., Gen. Motors Co., 476 So.2d 28, 29 (Miss.1985) (Commission's "inartfully-drawn" statement, that claimant was required to "prove her claim by a fair preponde......
  • Hedge v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 92-CC-00853
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • July 21, 1994
    ...claimant bears the burden of proving by a "fair preponderance of the evidence" each element of the claim. Bracey v. Packard Elec. Div., Gen. Motors Co., 476 So.2d 28, 29 (Miss.1985). These elements are: (1) an accidental injury, (2) arising out of and in the course of employment, and (3) a ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT