Davis v. McAfee Mfg. Co., 19511
| Decision Date | 31 October 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 19511,19511 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Robert L. DAVIS, Respondent, v. McAFEE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, and American Insurance Company, Appellants. |
Duke K. McCall, Jr., of Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann, Greenville, for appellants.
John Bolt Culbertson and Rodney A. Culbertson, Greenville, for respondent.
This case arose under the South Carolina Workmen's Compensation Act, Section 72--1 et seq., Code of 1962. There is here involved an appeal by the employer and its insurance carrier from an order of the county court affirming an award of the Industrial Commission in favor of Robert L. Davis, the respondent herein.
The record shows that the respondent suffered a work related injury on February 5, 1970, while employed by McAfee Manufacturing Company and his claim for compensation was settled by agreement as to the payment of benefits. He continued under the care of his attending physician until March 8, 1971, when he was discharged as having reached maximum healing with a five percent bodily permanent impairment. His employer, on March 19, 1971, filed an application to stop payment of compensation and this was granted by the Commission on April 5, 1971, effective as of March 8, 1971. Upon application of the employee, a hearing was held on June 10, 1971. The testimony was taken and thereafter on June 25, 1971, the Commissioner found that the respondent was totally disabled from February 5, 1970 through June 10, 1971, and that his disability was continuing; and he was entitled to additional medical care and treatment because he had not reached maximum healing on said date. Thereafter, the appellants filed an application for review by the full Commission and the full Commission, with one commissioner dissenting, affirmed the decision of the single commissioner.
The sole question on appeal is whether or not there was any competent evidence to support the award of the Commission.
It is well settled that in Workmen's Compensation cases the Commission is the fact finding body and on appeal the County Court and this Court are limited in their review of the facts to a determination of whether or not there is any competent evidence to support the factual findings of the Commission. It is only where the evidence gives rise to but one reasonable inference that the question becomes one of law for the court to decide. Arnold v. Benjamin Booth Co., 257 S.C. 337, 185 S.E.2d 830.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kinsey v. Champion Am. Service Center
...of law for the courts to decide. Privette v. S.C. State Forestry Commission, 265 S.C. 117, 217 S.E.2d 25 (1975); Davis v. McAfee Mfg. Co., 259 S.C. 433, 192 S.E.2d 328 (1972). The testimony inescapably establishes that there were indeterminate lapses of time between the knife-throwing incid......
-
Robinson v. City of Cayce, 20109
...when the Commission's finding is supported by competent evidence. Burns v. Joyner, Smith's, April 14, 1975; Davis v. McAfee Mfg. Co., et al., 259 S.C. 433, 435, 192 S.E.2d 328 (1972). Furthermore, the Commission's findings may be based on reasonable inferences drawn from the testimony. Eagl......
-
Burns v. Joyner, 19995
...court nor this Court will disturb the ruling of the Commission if there is evidence to sustain its factual findings. Davis v. McAfee Mfg. Co., 259 S.C. 433, 192 S.E.2d 328. The appellant questions the findings of fact by the Commission in the following particulars: (1) Was there competent e......
-
Privette v. South Carolina State Forestry Commission, 20059
...gives rise to but one reasonable inference that the question becomes one of law for the court to decide. Davis v. McAfee Manufacturing Co., 259 S.C. 433, 192 S.E.2d 328. We have reviewed the entire record in this case and find that the only reasonable conclusion that can be determined from ......