Fowler v. Durant Sportswear, Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 October 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 44564,44564 |
| Citation | 203 So.2d 577 |
| Parties | Mrs. Mavis FOWLER v. DURANT SPORTSWEAR, INC. and U.S.F. & G. Company. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Henry K. Van Every, Columbus, Crawley & Ford, Kosciusko, for appellant.
Crawley, Brooks & Guyton, Kosciusko, for appellees.
The claimant, Mrs. Mavis Fowler, filed a claim for workmen's compensation benefits and her claim was denied by the attorney referee, the Workmen's Compensation Commission, and the circuit court. She appealed to this Court and we affirm.
Claimant was employed by Durant Sportswear, Incorporated, at Durant, Mississippi. She lived in Kosciusko, about eighteen miles distant. Her duties consisted of sewing ski jackets. She testified that she ran out of jackets, walked a short distance away, picked up a bundle weighing twenty pounds or more and experienced pain in her back. As a result she suffered a ruptured disc in her back.
The testimony of claimant was contradicted in numerous particulars including the following: (1) Claimant testified she reported to Mrs. Cain, her supervisor, that she had hurt her back and needed Anacin for pain and that Mrs. Cain told her the office no longer kept Anacin. Mrs. Cain denied claimant said anything to her about an accident or asked for Anacin. (2) Claimant testified that after she could not get Anacin from Mrs. Cain she asked Mrs. Overstreet, a co-worker, to give her some and Mrs. Overstreet said she had none, referring claimant to Mrs. Otts who gave claimant two Anacin tablets. Mrs. Overstreet denied this. (3) Claimant testified Mrs. Otts gave her two Anacin tablets, but Mrs. Otts testified she could not recall giving Anacin to claimant. (4) Claimant testified the accident took place about 3:30 P.M. and that she sat at her machine without working until quitting time at 4:00 P.M. Several of claimant's co-workers who operated machines near her did not recall seeing claimant idle from the time of the alleged injury until quitting time; and the plant manager testified that production records showed claimant turned out more work on the day of the alleged injury than on any other day that week, achieving 116% efficiency on that day, which was Friday. (5) Four of claimant's co-workers, including Mrs. Overstreet and Mrs. Otts, testified that they worked near claimant and have no recollection of claimant being injured or of claimant making any statement about being injured or being in pain. (6) Claimant testified that on the day she was injured she rode with six other of her co-workers from Durant to her home in Kosciusko and that she had trouble getting into and out of the automobile and while en route told the other ladies about hurting her back. Five of these ladies testified that they recalled nothing unusual about the manner in which claimant got into and out of the car and none remembered claimant saying she had been injured or about being in pain.
Two ladies and claimant's husband testified that when claimant got out of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chaney v. State, 2000-KA-00973-COA.
...case and almost all of the later references to the precedent have been in similar litigation. E.g., Fowler v. Durant Sportswear, Inc., 203 So.2d 577, 579 (Miss.1967). The authority Lucedale itself cited, though, was a personal injury case. Lucedale Veneer, 211 Miss. at 635, 53 So.2d at 75, ......
-
Penrod Drilling Co. v. Etheridge
...testimony" concerning the cause of the injury may be "substantial evidence" upon which a claim is denied. In Fowler v. Durant Sportswear, Inc., 203 So.2d 577 (Miss.1967), we said the Claimant contends that the decision of the Commission is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence......
-
White v. Superior Products, Inc., 56663
...evidence upon which a claim may be denied. Penrod Drilling Co. v. Etheridge, 487 So.2d 1330, 1331 (Miss.1986); Fowler v. Durant Sportswear, 203 So.2d 577, 579 (Miss.1967). In this record, there is considerable circumstantial evidence from which the Commission might have found with reason th......
-
Ellis v. SALEM SPORTSWEAR MFG.
...may be denied." White, 515 So.2d at 927; Penrod Drilling Co. v. Etheridge, 487 So.2d 1330, 1331 (Miss.1986); Fowler v. Durant Sportswear, Inc., 203 So.2d 577, 579 (Miss.1967). ¶ 18. In this case the claimant's testimony is uncorroborated and further overwhelmingly contradicted by the very p......