Delta Drilling Co. v. Cannette, 55621

• Decision Date: 21 May 1986
• Docket Number: No. 55621,55621
• Citation: 489 So.2d 1378
• Parties: DELTA DRILLING COMPANY and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Thomas L. CANNETTE.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 1378

489 So.2d 1378

DELTA DRILLING COMPANY and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Thomas L. CANNETTE.

No. 55621.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 21, 1986.

Rehearing Denied July 9, 1986.

William D. Blakeslee, Robert H. Walker, Bryant, Stennis & Colingo, Gulfport, for appellants.

Robert W. Smith, Biloxi, for appellee.

Before ROY NOBLE LEE, P.J., and DAN M. LEE and ROBERTSON, JJ.

ROBERTSON, Justice, for the Court:

I.

This workers' compensation appeal presents questions regarding the adequacy of proof to establish a work connected injury and disability, the authority of the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission to reopen the evidentiary record to direct the taking of additional testimony, and finally whether the evidence here suggests an apportioned award. Not formally raised but of greater concern is the inordinate delay which has been encountered in bringing this matter to a conclusion--the injury having occurred on October 3, 1980, and the motion to controvert having been filed on April 3, 1981.

For the reasons explained below, we hold that the evidence adequately established that Claimant sustained a work connected injury and that the procedural indulgences granted Claimant by the Commission en route were well within the Commission's authority and discretion. Because we are of the opinion that the evidence overwhelmingly establishes that a part of Claimant's disability is the proximate result of a preexisting handicap, disease or lesion, we vacate the judgment below and remand for the entry of an apportioned award.

II.

Thomas L. Cannette, Claimant below and Appellee here, was born on February 10, 1944, and is now some 42 years of age. Cannette has not worked since October 3, 1980. He has a third grade education, can neither read nor write and has spent most of his adult life as a roughneck on oil rigs. Many of these years have been spent in the service of Delta Drilling Company, Employer herein and one of the Appellants herein.

The parties have stipulated that Cannette is permanently, totally and occupationally disabled.

On October 3, 1980, Cannette was working for Delta Drilling on Rig No. 56 outside of Columbia, Mississippi. His description of his injury appears in the record as follows:

We were tripping pipe.... The driller was brand new on the rig. He didn't know nothing about it.... I've got a belt on, and I reach out and put rope around the drill pipe and pull it in. ... You've got five or six inches before the pipe sits on the board, the driller slaps on the handle, the brake handle. You've got a twenty to twenty-five ton block holding that and if you have got a wrap around it and already pulling ... when he slams down on the brake the drill pipe and block will sling on you..... When he did that he just pulled me half in two.... It felt like all my bottom slapped to my head ... it wasn't two or three stands and he pushed down on the handle again.... He was getting nervous.... Last time he pulled, I felt like everything tore loose. I felt like my whole guts were tore loose. I felt like my whole guts were coming out of my stomach ... As I was getting in my car, I got halfway and I had to stop and I started throwing up ...

The only other witness who testified was Dr. Jerry R. Adkins. After several false starts, Dr. Adkins supplied medical expert testimony regarding the work connectedness of Cannette's injury and disability.

On May 19, 1982, the Administrative Judge entered an order dismissing Cannette's claim on grounds that the evidence failed to establish a compensable injury which arose out of and in the course and scope of Cannette's employment. After considerable procedural maneuverings to be noted later, the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission on May 27, 1983, entered its order in lieu of the order of the Administrative Judge finding that Cannette had indeed sustained a compensable work connected injury and ordering Delta Drilling Company, Employer, and Aetna Life and Casualty Company, Carrier, to pay to Cannette permanent and total disability benefits at the rate of $98.00 per week beginning October 3, 1980, and continuing for a period not to exceed 450 weeks for a total sum of $44,100.00. Employer and Carrier were also ordered to provide reasonable and necessary medical services and supplies. Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 71-3-15 (1972). On January 25, 1984, the Circuit Court of Stone County, Mississippi, affirmed. This appeal has followed.

III.

The bottom line position of Employer and Carrier is that Cannette has simply not suffered a compensable, work connected injury. In their brief they even deny that Cannette was at work on the day he claims he was injured. The Commission, however, found to the contrary and the Circuit Court has affirmed.

The finding under attack here, viz. that Cannette suffered a work connected injury on October 3, 1980, and is occupationally disabled as a result thereof, is a finding of fact made by an administrative agency charged in law with the responsibility for making such findings. Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 71-3-47 (1972); Dunn, Mississippi Workmens Compensation, Secs. 284, 361-63 (3d ed.1982). Under our statutory scheme, the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission is the factfinder. Our scope of review on appeal is limited, as is the authority of the circuit court. Our function is to determine whether there is substantial credible evidence which would support the factual determination made by the Commission. Georgia-Pacific Corporation v. Veal, 484 So.2d 1025, 1027 (Miss.1986). If there should be such substantial credible evidence, we are without authority to disturb that which the Commission has found, even though that evidence would not be sufficient to convince us were we the factfinders. Olen Burrage Trucking Co. v. Chandler, 475 So.2d 437, 439 (Miss.1985); South Central Bell Telephone Company v. Aden, 474 So.2d 584, 589-90 (Miss.1985); Staple Cotton Services Association v. Russell, 399 So.2d 224, 228-29 (Miss.1981); King & Heath Construction Co. v. Hester, 360 So.2d 692, 694 (Miss.1978).

It matters little that this might be a doubtful case of compensability. This Court has repeatedly directed both the administrative and judicial agencies considering such cases that doubts should be resolved in favor of finding compensability to the end that the beneficent purposes of the act may be implemented. South Central Bell Telephone Company v. Aden, 474 So.2d 584, 590 (Miss.1985); Barham v. Klumb Forest Products Center, Inc., 453 So.2d 1300, 1303-04 (Miss.1984).

In this context we recall that the only fact witness was the Claimant, Thomas Cannette. His narrative description of the injury, set forth in Section II above, is sufficient unto the day.

To be sure, our law requires that a disability determination be supported by medical findings. Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 71-3-3(i) (Supp.1954); Cole v. Superior Coach Corp., 234 Miss. 287, 106 So.2d 71, 72 (1958). Dr. Adkins supplied this requisite by this testimony that "his [Cannette's] job related injury was related to his subsequent findings and his physical disability ... I am certain that his job was related to his physical findings, yes." The fact that Dr. Adkins was uncertain regarding the extent to which Cannette disability was attributable to the October 3, 1980 accident and the further fact that Dr. Adkins refused to employ the word "substantially" to his opinion are in no way fatal. Our law does not require a precise, complete and unequivocal medical explanation of the extent to which an industrial accident has caused a claimant's injury and attendant disability. South Central Bell Telephone...