Branch v. Pacific Mills

• Decision Date: 03 November 1944
• Docket Number: 15686.
• Parties: BRANCH et al. v. PACIFIC MILLS et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

32 S.E.2d 1

205 S.C. 353

BRANCH et al. v. PACIFIC MILLS et al.

No. 15686.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

November 3, 1944

Nelson Mullins & Grier, of Columbia, for appellants.

H H. Edens, of Columbia, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court affirming an award to the respondents by the South Carolina Industrial Commission of the maximum death benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Act July 17, 1935, 39 St. at Large, p. 1231, on account of the death of Oscar L. Branch an employee of the appellant, Pacific Mills, who died on the morning of April 19, 1943, while on duty in the slasher room of Pacific Mills, as the result of a stroke or cerebral hemorrhage.

The exceptions raise the question that there is no testimony to sustain the conclusion that the death of the employee resulted from a cerebral hemorrhage, by accident, arising out of his employment.

Section 2, subdiv. (f) of our Workmen's Compensation Act, defines the words "injury" and "personal injury" as "only injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment, and shall not include a disease in any form, except where it results naturally and unavoidably from the accident;" and subdivision (j) of the same section provides: " The term 'death' as a basis for a right to compensation means only death resulting from an injury."

It has been well stated that "the two parts of the phrase 'arising out of and in the course of the employment' are not synonymous, and both must exist simultaneously before any Court will allow recovery under a compensation act so worded." "'Arising out of' refers to the origin and cause of the injury, whereas 'in the course of' refers to the time, place, and circumstances of the occurrence." See Ryan v. State Industrial Commission, 128 Okl. 25, 261 P. 181; Ridout v Rose's 5-10-25¢ Stores, 205 N.C. 423, 171 S.E. 642.

Courts have gone far in affirming the findings of Commissions charged with the administering of Workmen's Compensation Acts since on occasions their findings of fact have been based on slight testimony. In the recent case of Crawford et al. v. Town of Winnsboro et al., S.C., 30 S.E.2d 841, 848, this Court felt impelled to remark as follows:

"The functions of the Workmen's Compensation Commission are of a dual character, administrative and judicial. In the field of judicial action, the Commission may be likened to a judge trying a law case without a jury. The rule that the findings of fact made by a circuit judge in such a situation, when founded upon testimony which would have been sufficient to support the verdict of a jury, may not be disturbed on appeal, applies to an award made by the Workmen's Compensation Commission when the award comes before the Circuit and Supreme Courts for review. Conversely when the testimony before the Commission does not create a reasonable inference in support of the claimant's case, it is the duty of the Commission to reject the claim.

From the judicial aspect of the Commission's functions it follows that the trial conducted by the single Commissioner and the review made by the whole Commission are not for the purpose of determining whether there is in the case in hand some item or element of testimony upon which the Commission may hang an award for the claimant, or an order refusing an award; on the contrary, whether the testimony be meagre or voluminous, direct or circumstantial, the question in each case is whether on the whole record, giving effect to all of the testimony adduced, there is sufficient evidence to persuade the Commission as a judicial body that the case made by the claimants has been proved."

The issue raised by this appeal makes it our duty to search the record for the purpose of ascertaining if there is any competent evidence to sustain the award of the Industrial Commission, which award was affirmed by the Circuit Judge in a brief order, citing the case of Westbury v. Heslep & Thomason Co., 199 S.C. 124, 18 S.E.2d 668.

The decedent, Oscar L. Branch, about 55 years of age at the time of his death, had been employed at the Pacific Mills for twelve years or more, and for two or three years prior to his death had been employed as a card grinder. In addition to his duties as card grinder it was necessary for him to go into the slasher room once a week, or as often as the condition of the dust pipes require it, to clean and supervise the cleaning of the dust pipes in this room. He was furnished with colored helpers to do the manual labor, but on occasions had himself performed some of the labor. Ordinarily the helpers did the actual labor, and Mr. Branch merely supervised their work. The temperature in the slasher room was kept considerably higher than in the other rooms of the Mill, this being necessary in order to dry out the yarn, and this condition is not peculiar to Pacific Mills.

For about two and one-half years prior to his death, Mr. Branch had what is called hypertension, which is a cardiovascular disease where a man's blood pressure is over 200, and Mr. Branch's blood pressure ranged from 240 to 250. When a person is in this condition it is known (expected?) that the cause of his death is going to be a stroke. During this period of time Mr. Branch had not been able to work regularly, although for the period of six months preceding his death he had worked fairly regularly, being off only a day or two out of every three or four weeks.

Mr. Branch was sick on Sunday, the day before his death, and remained in bed the greater part of that day. When he came to work at the usual time (7 o'clock) the following morning (the morning of his death), he appeared pale, and was heard to remark that he felt so bad he didn't feel like living. At about 7:30 o'clock, while he was on his way to the slasher room, an employee of the Mill requested Mr. Branch to help him move a Werner Brush, and he replied, "I feel so weak I don't know whether I could or not," but took hold of the brush and helped move it. The brush had an estimated weight of between thirty and forty pounds. Mr. Branch went on into the slasher room where a colored employee, his helper, had preceded him. This helper testified that he handled the ladder, and was the one who cleaned out the dust pipes; that Mr. Branch held the ladder while he was up on it for about ten minutes and until another colored helper came in and relieved Mr. Branch, at which time Mr. Branch went over and sat down on a beam. Another employee of the Mill testified that he was in and out of the slasher room during the process of the cleaning of the dust pipes, and saw Mr. Branch moving the ladder around, and also saw him on the second step of the ladder with a small rake in his hand--the rake used to clean out the pipes, but didn't know if Mr. Branch proceeded up the ladder. While the two helpers were engaged in cleaning the dust pipes, and after Mr. Branch had been sitting on the beam for about ten minutes, he got up and started walking towards the ladder, whereupon he commenced to slump or go down, but was caught by his helpers before falling to the floor. He did not trip or stumble over anything. He died shortly thereafter.

We have of course not undertaken to set out above more than the salient facts, but a careful reading of the record discloses that Mr. Branch did nothing on the morning of his death requiring physical exertion other than to assist in moving a brush weighing not more than forty pounds and moving a ladder, the weight of which there is no estimate, and that on neither occasion was he apparently affected by such slight exertion.

The only medical testimony in the record is that of Dr. R. L. Sanders, the physician of the deceased, and it is from his testimony that we have largely depended in relating the physical condition of Mr. Branch for two and one-half years preceding his death.

From a careful study of Dr. Sanders' testimony, we are impressed with his desire to honestly, truthfully and patiently answer all questions propounded to him. He had testified at length on both direct examination and cross-examination, but a practical summation of his testimony relating to the cause of Mr. Branch's...