Ford v. Allied Chemical Corp.

Decision Date05 May 1969
Docket NumberNo. 18914,18914
Citation167 S.E.2d 564,252 S.C. 561
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesAndrew F. FORD, Respondent, v. ALLIED CHEMICAL CORPORATION and the Travelers Insurance Company, Appellants.

Whaley, McCutchen, Blanton & Richardson, Columbia, for appellants.

Law, Kirkland, Aaron & Alley, Columbia, for respondent.

BUSSEY, Justice.

This is a Workmen's Compensation case, the appeal being by the employer from an order of the circuit court affirming a compensation award of the Industrial Commission in favor of the injured employee. The award was for temporary total disability for the period from February 3, 1966 through April 25, 1966, and for certain medical benefits. The employer denied liability solely on the basis of the following provision contained in Sec. 72--305 of the Code of Laws:

'The refusal of an employee to accept medical, hospital, surgical or other treatment when provided by the employer or ordered by the Commission shall bar such employee from further compensation until such refusal ceases and no compensation shall at any time be paid for the period of suspension unless in the opinion of the Commission the circumstances justified the refusal, in which case the Commission may order a change in the medical or hospital service.'

The award of the hearing Commissioner was affirmed without modification by a majority of the Commission and contained in the findings of fact is the following:

'4. That, in the opinion of this Commissioner, claimant did not refuse medical as provided. Furthermore, if seeking medical attention for relief of his condition when sufficient medical treatment had not been provided by the attending physician could be construed as refusal of medical, the circumstances were such as to justify the refusal.'

It is contended by the employer that the foregoing findings are not supported by any competent evidence. Whether an employee in fact refused medical treatment and, if he did, whether or not he was justified in doing so are factual issues for determination by the Commission, and its conclusions thereabout are final unless the evidence is susceptible of only one reasonable inference, in which event such questions become issues of law rendering the decision of the Commission subject to review. Cf. Ward v. Dixie Shirt Co., 223 S.C. 448, 76 S.E.2d 605.

We, accordingly, proceed to review the evidence, and state the facts and the reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to claimant, as we are required to do in determining whether the findings of the Commission are supported by competent evidence.

Claimant was injured about 3 o'clock on the afternoon of February 3rd, sustaining an injury to his head and neck when struck by a rack falling off of a fork truck. He was taken to the emergency room of the hospital and some time later that afternoon was seen by Dr. Graham, the regular physician for the employer, who was a general practitioner. In the emergency room, Dr. Graham gave him an injection for pain, caused certain X-rays to be made and, at about 9 o'clock that night, claimant was admitted to the hospital. Dr. Graham, realizing that the injury to claimant's neck required the services of an orthopedic surgeon, after calling one or more whom he was unable to contact, called in Dr. Edwards who was an orthopedic surgeon. Claimant was put in traction and kept in the hospital until the following Sunday afternoon, February 6th, when it was felt that he could be discharged with a neck collar and allowed to return to work on Monday morning. Claimant was in so much pain that he was only able to work a half day on Monday, February 7th, and was unable to work on Tuesday. He reported for work on Wednesday and Thursday, but did not work a full day either of those days. He reported to Dr. Graham's office for treatment on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, and was given some therapy by Dr. Graham, who testified that on Wednesday he didn't feel there was any need to treat him much more, but was keeping an eye on claimant and requested claimant to return to his office on Friday so that he could see him again.

Claimant had a pre-arranged appointment with Dr. Edwards, who had been called in by Dr. Graham, for Thursday, the 10th, which he kept. Claimant was then suffering not only pain in his neck but with severe headaches, which symptoms were communicated to Dr. Edwards, but the record clearly indicates that Dr. Edwards was not impressed with his complaints, and suggested only that he buy some aspirin and return to work. Dr. Edwards, however, gave him an appointment for the following Thursday simply as a matter of routine. Upon leaving Dr. Edwards' office, claimant's painful condition continued to worsen to the extent that on Thursday night his family contacted a family physician and through him arrangements were made for claimant to see Dr. Kimbrough, an orthopedic surgeon connected with Moore Clinic. Dr. Kimbrough saw him on Friday, the 11th, and upon examination...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Hernandez-Zuniga v. Tickle
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • June 14, 2007
    ...reserved to the Appellate Panel. See Dawkins v. Jordan, 341 S.C. 434, 441, 534 S.E.2d 700, 704 (2000) (citing Ford v. Allied Chem. Corp., 252 S.C. 561, 167 S.E.2d 564 (1969)). LAW/ANALYSIS Claimant contends the circuit court erred in finding Tickle was not an employer subject to the Workers......
  • Hall v. United Rentals, Inc.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • October 23, 2006
    ...or the Commission. S.C.Code Ann. § 42-15-60 (Supp.2005) (emphasis added). In Clark, this court analyzed Ford v. Allied Chemical Corp., 252 S.C. 561, 167 S.E.2d 564 (1969) with regard to this issue. As explicated in Clark, the claimant in Ford sustained a neck and head injury. His treating p......
  • Porter v. Labor Depot
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • March 5, 2007
    ...reserved to the Appellate Panel. See Dawkins v. Jordan, 341 S.C. 434, 441, 534 S.E.2d 700, 704 (2000) (citing Ford v. Allied Chem. Corp., 252 S.C. 561, 167 S.E.2d 564 (1969)). In support of his argument that the greater weight of evidence supports an employer-employee relationship, Porter o......
  • Shealy v. Aiken County
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • July 24, 2000
    ...determination of witness credibility and the weight to be accorded evidence is reserved to the Full Commission. Ford v. Allied Chem. Co., 252 S.C. 561, 167 S.E.2d 564 (1969). It is not the task of this Court to weigh the evidence as found by the Full Commission. Ellis v. Spartan Mills, 276 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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