Cagle v. Clinton Cotton Mills
| Decision Date | 07 December 1949 |
| Docket Number | 16290. |
| Citation | 56 S.E.2d 747,216 S.C. 93 |
| Parties | CAGLE v. CLINTON COTTON MILLS et al. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
W. K. Charles, Greenwood, for appellant.
Nettle & Horton, Greenville, for respondents.
The appellant, an employee of Clinton Cotton Mills one of the respondents, sustained an accidental injury in the course of her employment when on October 10, 1947, she was struck in the mouth with a bobbin, resulting in the loss of six (6) teeth, four of which were upper front live teeth, and two were on a bridge. She was referred to a dentist in Clinton, who necessarily made her a new bridge (removable) which also undertook to compensate for the loss of the additional live teeth, but which did not prove satisfactory. However, the fact that this new bridge was unsatisfactory does not enter into this case as an issue, although the dental bill was paid by the respondents.
The appellant lost two days from her work as a result of the accident, which did not entitle her to compensation for temporary total disability; and when she is wearing the dental bridge there is no disfigurement apparent.
Within due time the appellant filed her claim for the loss of her teeth under the amendment of Section 31(t) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, Act May 20, 1941, 42 St. at Large, p. 221, § 1, approved May 20, 1941, and reading as follows:
At the hearing before the Industrial Commission, it was admitted that the accident arose out of and in the course of appellant's employment, and respondents relied solely on the opinion of this Court in the case of Vick v. Springs Cotton Mills, 209 S.C. 372, 40 S.E.2d 409, 410.
On September 10, 1948, the Industrial Commission, through the hearing commissioner, awarded the appellant the sum of $800 compensation for 'disfigurement' as a matter of law, under Section 31(t) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended, which amendment is hereinbefore set out. The full commission, on appeal thereto, affirmed this award, but on appeal to the Circuit Court, the appeal was sustained on the authority of Vick v. Springs Cotton Mills, supra, by which case that Court felt bound.
We can well appreciate how the learned Circuit Judge felt bound by the Vick case by reason of some of the language in that opinion. That some of the statements therein contained are misleading will not be denied, and can only be accounted for because of the fact that in said case the award of the full commission was made for an actual serious facial disfigurement under that portion of Section 31(t) of the Compensation Act reading, 'In case of serious facial * * * disfigurement, the Industrial Commission shall award proper and equitable compensation * * *,' and not under the amendment of 1941 for loss of a member of the body. In other words, as that case came to this Court, the amendment of 1941 to Section 31(t) of the Workmen's Compensation Act was before us only incidentally because the claimant had lost teeth, but had suffered a serious facial disfigurement as a matter of fact, for which he was entitled to be compensated under the Act as originally passed, and the aid of the amendment was wholly unnecessary to warrant and sustain the award made....
To continue reading
Request your trial