Burlington Mills Corp. v. Hagood

• Decision Date: 24 February 1941
• Citation: 13 S.E.2d 291
• Parties: BURLINGTON MILLS CORPORATION. v. HAGOOD.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

13 S.E.2d 291

BURLINGTON MILLS CORPORATION.

v.HAGOOD.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Feb. 24, 1941.

Appeal from Industrial Commission.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Code 1936, § 1887 (1) et seq., by Inez Hagood, claimant, opposed by the Burlington Mills Corporation, Blue Ridge Rayon Mills Division, employer. From a decision of the Industrial Commission awarding compensation, the employer appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before HOLT, HUDGINS, GREGORY, EGGLESTON, and SPRAT-LEY, JJ.

Caskie, Frost & Watts, of Lynchburg, for appellant.

Frank W. Stowers, of Altavista, for appellee.

SPRATLEY, Justice.

This appeal is from a decision of the Industrial Commission of Virginia award-ing the appellee, Inez Hagood, compensation for disabilities alleged to have been due to an accident in the course of her employment.

There was little dispute in the evidence before the Commission. As found by Commissioner Nickels on the hearing before him and adopted by the full Commission on its review, the facts are as follows:

On March 23, 1939, Mrs. Hagood, 20 years of age, a regular employee of the appellant, was working at a machine, approximately 15 feet away from an electric motor which was being repaired. A loose wire in the motor caused a short circuit, which produced an electric flash and a sound resembling that of a shotgun. Mrs. Hagood saw the flash and had started to fall backwards when she was rescued by a coemployee. She said that she felt as if something had run up her arm. First aid was administered, and she was sent to her home.

On the next day, she returned to work and worked steadily, with the exception of two intervening days, until April 13, 1939. While at work on April 13, 1939, she looked up and suddenly saw the employee who had caught her when she fell on March 23d. She thereupon fainted and fell, and has not returned to work since.

The electrical wiring in the plant was such that it was impossible for the current to have reached the machine upon which she was working. There was no pathology disclosing electrical burns or other physical conditions which usually result from electrical shock. Mrs. Hagood tacitly admitted that she did not hear the sound of the explosion, having fainted immediately upon sight of the flash.

Further facts and the conclusions of the Commission are stated in this language:

"While the claimant continued her work as disclosed hereinabove, the facts proven show that it was with difficulty as she was in an extremely nervous condition which had persisted from March 23d to April 13th, the date upon which she ceased her activities as an employee. The medical evidence of both parties at issue shows conclusively the cause of the disability to be traumatic neurosis. The record further shows the economic and social background of the claimant, as well as mental makeup, to be a person susceptible to neurotic manifestations. All physicians who testified in the case were uniform in the opinion the present disability is caused by traumatic neurosis, which in turn was produced by the flare in the electric motor which was near-by."

An award was rendered the employee at the rate of $6 per week, beginning April 13, 1939, to continue during disability and until subsequent conditions should justify a modification, together with allowances for medical and hospital attention.

The findings of fact by the Commission are conclusive and binding upon us. They are not subject to review in the absence of fraud. Virginia Code, 1936, section 1887, subsection 61. Blair v. Buchanan Coal Corp., 171 Va. 102, 198 S.E. 491, and cases cited.

The appellant does not charge fraud. It contends that the evidence does not support a finding that the appellee was suffering from traumatic neurosis. The evidence negatives this contention.

Mrs. Hagood testified that she was in good health prior to March 23, 1939; that when the explosion suddenly occurred "a blue blaze flared"; that, as she saw it, "something" ran up her arm "like a little needle, " "something" choked her "at the neckline, " and she "commenced falling backwards"; and that she has since greatly suffered from nervous and physical disorders, although she has tried to continue at her work.

Three medical doctors testified. Dr. D. P. Scott, a specialist, carefully examined her on May 29, 1939, and saw her "a good many times" thereafter up to February 29, 1940. Dr. E. F. Neal saw her on March 23, 1939, a half hour after the accident, and a number of times thereafter up to February 27, 1940. Dr. Q. H. Barney examined her on May 24, 1939. All three agreed that she had traumatic neurosis resulting from the shock, and that, on account of her emotional make-up, the accident and shock precipitated a functional disturbance. They said that whether or not the shock had been actually received or fancied was not "enormously important, " and "did not change the medical picture at all" in her case. They agreed that "anxiety neurosis" gives itself a subjective picture which produces the damage, and that no matter how honest a person may be, the question of compensation is apt to play a part in prolonging and continuing the condition. They thought that her disability was not permanent. Another doctor, who examined the appellee on behalf of her employer, did not testify.

The doctors thus, in effect, stated that traumatic neurosis was traceable to the shock or disturbing effect on the nerves of the patient, and that in turn, the irritation of the nerves caused functional disorders, and, that whether the disability resulted from nervous reaction or from...