Cates v. Hunt Const. Co., 770
| Decision Date | 16 June 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 770,770 |
| Citation | 148 S.E.2d 604,267 N.C. 560 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Robie Willard CATES v. HUNT CONSTRUCTION CO., Inc., Employer, and Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.,Carrier. |
Powe, Porter & Alphin, by Oliver W. Alphin, Durham, for plaintiff appellant.
Spears, Spears & Barnes, by Alexander H. Barnes, Durham, for defendant appellees.
At the time of plaintiff's injury, June 18, 1962, the Workmen's Compensation Act, G.S. § 97--31, provided a list of compensable injuries and the method for determining the rate and period of compensation: 'In cases included by the following schedule the compensation in each case shall be paid for disability during the healing period and in addition the disability shall be deemed to continue for the period specified, and shall be in lieu of all other compensation, including disfigurement.'
Subsections (1) through (20) neither included compensation for disfigurement nor for the loss of, or injury to, an internal organ of the body. However, Subsection (21) provided: 'In case of serious facial or head disfigurement, the Industrial Commission shall award proper and equitable compensation not to exceed three thousand five hundred dollars.' Subsection (22) provided:
'In case of serious bodily disfigurement, including the loss of or permanent injury to any important external or internal organ or part of the body for which no compensation is payable under the preceding subsections, but excluding the disfigurement resulting from permanent loss or permanent partial loss of use of any member of the body for which compensation is fixed in the above schedule, the Industrial Commission may award proper and equitable compensation not to exceed three thousand five hundred dollars ($3,500.00); provided, that the Industrial Commission may not make an award for permanent partial or permanent total disability, and also for bodily disfigurement resulting from loss of, or permanent injury to, any internal organ, the loss of which, or the injury to which resulted in such permanent partial or permanent total disability.'
Subsection (21) is mandatory in providing that the Industrial Commission Shall award proper and equitable compensation, not to exceed $3,500.00 for serious facial or head disfigurement. Subsection (22), as of June 18, 1962, provided, '(T)he Industrial Commission May award proper and equitable compensation not to exceed three thousand five hundred dollars ($3,500.00)' in case of serious bodily disfigurement, 'including the loss of or permanent injury to any important external or internal organ or part of the body * * *.'
The hearing commissioner found facts and entered an award of compensation in the amount of $300.00 for the scar and $2,500.00 for the loss of the kidney. On review, the full Commission, 'As a matter of law,' acting under what it considered the compulsion of the Branham, Davis, and Arrington cases, struck out the award of $2,500.00 for the loss of the kidney. The Industrial Commission and the Superior Court permitted the Commissioner's finding of disfigurement to stand.
Subsections (1) to (20), inclusive, do not provide any compensation whatever for injuries on account of disfigurement. Neither do they provide compensation for loss of or injury to an organ or part of the body. While Subsection (21) provides compensation for serious disfigurement of the face or head, Subsection (22) provides compensation for serious bodily disfigurement, including the loss of, or injury to, an external or internal organ of the body. Under the facts found in this case, a scar, 16 inches long, unevenly healed, and the complete loss of a kidney in the course of treatment for the industrial accident, would seem to permit, if not compel, the award of compensation for the loss of the kidney. To hold otherwise is to sanction a strict, narrow, and strained construction of the subsection. It must be remembered the Workmen's Compensation Act requires the Industrial Commission and the courts to construe the compensation act liberally in favor of the injured workman. 'The Act 'should be liberally construed to the end that the benefits thereof should not be denied upon technical, narrow, and strict interpretation. " Guest v. Brenner Iron & Metal Co., 241 N.C. 448, 85 S.E.2d 596; Henry v. A. C. Lawrence Leather Co., 231 N.C. 477, 57 S.E.2d 760. The philosophy which supports the Workmen's Compensation Act is that the wear and tear of the workman, as well as the machinery, shall be charged to the industry. Vause v. Vause Farm Equipment Co., 233 N.C. 88, 63...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Workman v. Rutherford Electric
...Hollman v. City of Raleigh, Pub. Util. Dep't, 273 N.C. 240, 252, 159 S.E.2d 874, 882 (1968); Cates v. Hunt Constr. Co., Inc., 267 N.C. 560, 563, 148 S.E.2d 604, 607 (1966). After thoroughly reviewing the depositions and medical notes of Dr. Anthony Wheeler and Dr. Dominick Carbone, I conclu......
-
Harrell v. Harriet & Henderson Yarns
...the injured worker to the end that its benefits not be denied upon technical, narrow or strict interpretation. Cates v. Hunt Construction Co., 267 N.C. 560, 148 S.E.2d 604 (1966). Finally, when confronted with this issue on another occasion, the Court of Appeals also decided the legislature......
-
Derebery v. Pitt County Fire Marshall
... ... The Court of Appeals, relying on Barnhardt v. Cab Co., 266 N.C. 419, 146 S.E.2d 479 (1966), held that the ... Dayco Co., 317 N.C. 670, 346 S.E.2d 395 (1986); Cates ... Page 819 ... v. Construction Co., 267 N.C. 560, ... ...
-
Hyler v. GTE Products Co.
...interpretation." Harrell v. Harriet & Henderson Yarns, 314 N.C. 566, 578, 336 S.E.2d 47, 54 (1985) (citing Cates v. Hunt Construction Co., 267 N.C. 560, 148 S.E.2d 604 (1966)). While a court should not construe the Act liberally in favor of an employee if such construction contravenes "the ......