Crump v. Fields, 43337

Decision Date15 February 1965
Docket NumberNo. 43337,43337
Citation171 So.2d 857,251 Miss. 864
PartiesW. D. CRUMP, d/b/a Crump Motor Co., and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. L. J. FIELDS.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

James A. Phyfer, Brewer, Brewer & Luckett, Clarksdale, for appellants.

Breland & Whitten, Sumner, for appellee.

LEE, Chief Justice.

L. J. Fields, in his claim against W. D. Crump d/b/a W. D. Crump Motor Company, and its insurer, was awarded workmen's compensation benefits by the attorney-referee. This action was approved and affirmed by the commission. On appeal to the circuit court, the order of the commission was affirmed. The case now appears in this Court on appeal.

L. J. Fields was 44 years old, married, and had four children. His education ended with the eighth grade. In 1953, he became an automobile body repairman, and he has followed that occupation since. Beginning in October 1961, he was employed by W. D. Crump Motor Company. His average weekly wage was $75.00. On April 5, 1962, he painted a car with a new quickdrying enamel known as DL-60. Immediately he became ill and was hospitalized at Charleston for several days. When Dr. G. L. Biles, his family physician, saw him later and learned that he had been diagnosed as having heart trouble, he did not agree. On June 18, 1962, Fields returned to his work, came in contact with the same paint again, and immediately noticed a definite shortness of breath. He also wheezed and had hard knots to break out over his body. He was treated by Dr. Biles and sent to Clarksdale for hospitalization under the care of Dr. W. N. Crowson, who made a report thereon on July 17, 1962. After several weeks, claimant returning to his work about the middle of October, again came in contact with the same paint substance, and immediately suffered another severe attack. After this episode, Dr. Biles sent his patient to the Henry Hay Fever and Asthma Clinic in Memphis. There he was subjected to numerous tests and examinations by Dr. W. W. Taylor. It was definitely shown that he had a positive reaction against this particular paint, and the doctor advised that he could not continue his occupation, if subjected to further exposure.

There was also testimony by fellow-workers and a former employer to the effect that Fields had never suffered any such experience. As a matter of fact, all of the evidence was to the effect that the claimant had no trouble of any kind; that he had been a hard worker, equal if not superior, to his colleagues; and that he had never gone to a doctor in his life except one time, and then only for a cold.

The evidence of Dr. Biles was to the effect that this exposure to the paint caused Fields' asthmatic condition with the result that he would never be able to do that kind of work again. The other four doctors gave somewhat similar reports and agreed that he would never be able to do that kind of work in the future.

The attorney-referee appointed Dr. Watts R. Webb, an Associate Professor of Surgery at University Hospital, to examine the claimant. The doctor did so, and subsequently reported his findings on June 7, 1963. Like the other doctors he diagnosed the situation as a generalized obstructive pulmonary emphysema. While being of the opinion that the emphysema had developed over several years as a result of cigarette smoking, it was his opinion that the exposure to the paint spray was an acute and severely aggravating factor. However, the evidence for the claimant was that, while he used to smoke a package of cigarettes a day, he had reduced such use to about a half pack a day. Besides, there had never before been any trouble with this man from such a condition.

Conceding that Dr. Webb's evidence was susceptible of an interpretation of a pre-existing handicap, at the same time, other evidence, as well as medical, conflicts with that view. At any rate no one attempted to say to what extent, if any, the severe attack was influenced by any pre-existing trouble. The triers of fact did not make any apportionment of benefits.

The first question is whether the attorney-referee erred, as appellants contend, in failing to make an apportionment of compensation because of the alleged pre-existing disease, handicap, or lesion.

If the claimant had a pre-existing condition, which contributed to his total disability, the appellants did not meet the burden resting upon them. Cuevas v. Sutter Well Works, 245 Miss. 478, 146 So.2d 542, 150 So.2d 524 (1963). In that case the opinion named the factors which necessarily had to exist, namely: The pre-existing condition had to exist, it had to be shown by medical findings to be a material contributing factor in the results, and the compensation reduced by that proportion which the pre-existing condition contributed to the production of the results following the injury. Besides, it was there held that the evidence to support the commission's finding on all of those factors had to be substantial. See also Federal Compress & Warehouse Co. v. Dependent of Clark, 246 Miss. 868, 152 So.2d 921 (1963), which reaffirmed the rule in Cuevas v. Sutter Well Works, supra. See also Southeastern Construction Co. v. Dependent of S. W. Dodson, dec., 247 Miss. 1, 153 So.2d 276 (1963). See also Dunn, Mississippi Workmen's Compensation section 94.6 (1963 Supp.).

The next problem, as assigned by the appellants, is whether the attorney-referee and then the commission erred in refusing to re-open the cause for rehearing on the question of an apportionment of benefits.

In order that the controversy may appear in proper focus, it is necessary to keep in mind that, after the claim had been filed, the appellants filed their answer, denying that any disability, temporary or permanent, grew out of or in the course of claimant's employment. There was no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Brown v. La France Industries, a Div. of Riegel Textile Corp., 0525
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 22 Abril 1985
    ...find La France's contention to be without merit. See Roman v. Broussard, 255 So.2d 135 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1971); Crump v. Fields, 251 Miss. 864, 171 So.2d 857 (1965); Croteau v. Harvey & Landers, 99 N.H. 264, 109 A.2d 553 (1954); 100 C.J.S. Workmen's Compensation § 596 at 843 (1958); cf. Holc......
  • Short v. House
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 17 Junio 2010
    ...9; Dunn at § 369). Also, “[a]mendments are of course liberally allowed so that the truth may be ascertained.” Crump v. Fields, 251 Miss. 864, 871, 171 So.2d 857, 859 (1965). ¶ 34. The Procedural Rules of the Commission, however, set certain requirements for such a motion:Where additional ev......
  • Walls v. Hodo Chevrolet Co., Inc., 47575
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 12 Noviembre 1974
    ...the results following the present injury. Greenville Mills v. Wilkinson, 297 So.2d 905 (Miss.1974). As pointed out in Crump v. Fields, 251 Miss. 864, 171 So.2d 857 (1965), the evidence to support a finding on the factors must be We are of the opinion and so hold that the record of a prior a......
  • Greenwood Utilities v. Williams
    • United States
    • Mississippi Court of Appeals
    • 11 Diciembre 2001
    ...of pleadings in workers' compensation matters should be "liberally allowed so that the truth may be ascertained." Crump v. Fields, 251 Miss. 864, 871, 171 So.2d 857, 859 (1965). We find the amendment here to be ¶ 43. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LEFLORE COUNTY IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT