Grice v. Dickerson, Inc.

• Citation: 127 S.E.2d 722,241 S.C. 225
• Decision Date: 23 October 1962
• Docket Number: No. 17977,17977
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Parties: Chesley S. GRICE, Appellant, v. DICKERSON, INC. and U. S. Casualty Company, Respondents.

Page 722

127 S.E.2d 722

241 S.C. 225

Chesley S. GRICE, Appellant, v. DICKERSON, INC. and U. S. Casualty Company, Respondents.

No. 17977.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Oct. 23, 1962.

Gasque, Seals & Gasque, Latta, for appellant.

Sinkler, Gibbs & Simons, Charleston, for respondents.

LEWIS, Justice.

This is a Workmen's Compensation case and involves an appeal by the claimant from an order of the lower court reversing an award of the Industrial Commission in his favor.

The claimant suffered an injury by accident on January 26, 1960, which arose out of and in the course of his employment, resulting in a right inguinal hernia which was repaired by surgery on March 16, 1960. Temporary total disability payments were paid to the claimant by the employer from the date of the injury to May 2, 1960, when the payments were stopped on advice of the surgeon that sufficient time had elapsed since the operation for recovery of the claimant therefrom.

The claimant was unable to continue his work after the operation and the record sustains the conclusion that the claimant is now totally disabled from rheumatoid arthritis. The claimant filed a claim for further benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act for his present disability, but the employer denied liability on the ground that there was no causal connection between his present disability and the injury sustained on January 26, 1960. The Commission held that such causal connection did exist and awarded compensation for total disability. The Circuit Court reversed the award, holding that the question as to the causal connection between claimant's present disability and his injury was solely a medical one, and that there was no medical testimony to support the findings of the Commission.

It is the contention of the claimant that the record sustains the conclusion that there was a causal connection between his present disability from rheumatoid arthritis and his injury and subsequent operation for repair of the hernia. Whether or not the record contains any competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain such conclusion is the sole question for determination in this appeal.

The claimant, twenty-five years of age at the time of his accident, was employed by Dickerson, Inc., in the operation of a drag line. On January 26, 1960 he slipped and fell six or eight feet from the top to the metal base of the drag line, striking his right side. He reported to a doctor on the same day and attempted unsuccessfully for several days to continue his work, but was finally hospitalized and underwent surgery on March 16, 1960 for the repair of an inguinal hernia caused by his fall. The claimant recovered from the hernia operation and returned to work on May 2, 1960 upon the advice of the surgeon who performed the operation. He worked that day and part of the next, but was unable to continue, returning to the surgeon on May 5th with complaints of weakness along with pain and discomfort. After continued visits to the surgeon with persistent complaints of weakness and pain, claimant was referred to a specialist in internal medicine for examination. This specialist found that the claimant had 'rheumatoid arthritis of an acute and subacute state' and also a disceased maxillary sinus.

The specialist who made the foregoing diagnosis testified that the cause of rheumatoid arthritis is not known, but that there are numerous situations and circumstances which are not infrequently observed to be related to the occurrence of the disease. These situations and circumstances, the Doctor testified, among others, 'extend from infection, dental infection, sinus infection, to emotional shocks and stresses, stress of a surgical operation, and injuries'. He further testified that two of the medically accepted precipitating causes of rheumatoid arthritis are 'stress of a surgical operation' and 'traumatic injury', and that the possibilities of a causal connection between a surgical operation and arthritis are strengthened by an early onset of arthritis thereafter.

The doctors who testified in this case agreed that medical science had not discovered the cause of rheumatoid arthritis. They agreed that the foregoing were some of the medically accepted precipitating causes of the disease. None would give a probable cause of claimant's condition, but dealt in terms of possibilities. It is clear from this record that the failure of the medical testimony to ascribe a definite cause for claimant's rheumatoid arthritis was due solely to the lack of knowledge on the part of medical science as to the cause of the disease and not to the absence of connecting circumstances with his injury and subsequent operation.

We have held that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to support a finding of fact or an award...