Cole v. Superior Coach Corp.
| Citation | 234 Miss. 287,106 So.2d 71 |
| Decision Date | 03 November 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 40899,40899 |
| Parties | Trenton C. COLE, Jr. v. SUPERIOR COACH CORPORATION. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
Crawley & Ford, Kosciusko, for appellant.
George J. Thornton, Kosciusko, for appellee.
Appellant, Trenton C. Cole, Jr., applied for workmen's compensation benefits resulting from an alleged back injury received by him on August 29, 1956, while employed by appellee Superior Coach Corporation. He returned to work on September 4, following the accident, having received compensation benefits for the interim period, and continued to work until October 1. He was also paid benefits from October 2-10, 1956. He contends that he is entitled to medical and temporary total disability benefits from October 10, 1956, until at least March 1, 1957; and that his claim should then be remanded to determine whether his disability has continued since the latter date. The attorney-referee, the Workmen's Compensation Commission, and the circuit court held that the evidence did not warrant an award subsequent to October 10, 1956. We think that finding and decision is supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed.
As was stated by the attorney-referee, the medical and lay testimony was 'totally irreconcilable.' That of claimant and his witnesses is directly contradicted by that of witnesses for the employer. The same situation exists with reference to the medical testimony. The testimony of claimant's orthopedic doctor is entirely different from that of the two medical specialists and a general practitioner for appellee. The former said that appellant has a chronic lumbosacral sprain in the lower back and traumatic myofibrositis. The three doctors who testified for appellee contradict this diagnosis. They are unable to find any objective symptom of a back injury. In addition, some of appellee's lay testimony as to appellant's activities subsequent to his alleged injury supports the conclusions of the doctors who testified on behalf of appellee.
The Commission is the trier of fact. It will be affirmed when there is substantial evidence supporting its decision. The medical testimony cannot be reconciled. The Commission had the right to evaluate it, and to accept that of appellee. The medical question is not an uncomplicated one. The issues with reference to an alleged injury of this type are properly within the province of medical experts. In all but the simple and routine cases (and this is not in that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harbert Const. Corp. v. Hughes
...234 Miss. 671, 107 So.2d 120 (1958); Grubbs v. Revell Furniture Co., 234 Miss. 319, 106 So.2d 390 (1958); Cole v. Superior Coach Corp., 234 Miss. 287, 106 So.2d 71 (1958); Freeman v. Mississippi Power & Light Co., 230 Miss. 396, 92 So.2d 658 (1957); Russell v. Southeastern Util. Serv. Co., ......
-
Yarbrough v. Hunt S. Grp., LLC, CAUSE NO. 1:18cv51-LG-RHW
...on causation." Savage v. Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C., 464 F. App'x 288, 290-91 (5th Cir. 2012); see also Cole v. Superior Coach Corp., 234 Miss. 287, 106 So.2d 71, 72 (1958) ("In all but the simple and routine cases . . ., it is necessary to establish medical causation by expert testimony.......
-
Short v. House
...a causal connection between Short's job and his injury was dispositive. We cannot say the Commission erred in this finding. In Cole v. Superior Coach Corporation, another back-injury case, this Court stated that “[t]he issues with reference to an alleged injury of this type are properly wit......
-
El Patio Motor Court, Inc. v. Long's Dependents
...to hear and evaluate the medical evidence, and to accept the testimony the Commission finds most plausible. Cole v. Superior Coach Corp., 234 Miss. 287, 106 So.2d 71. It is therefore the order of this Court that the order of the Workmen's Compensation Commission and the judgment of the Circ......