Hewitt v. Cheraw Cotton Mills

• Decision Date: 31 May 1950
• Docket Number: 16363.
• Citation: 59 S.E.2d 712,217 S.C. 90
• Parties: HEWITT v. CHERAW COTTON MILLS et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

59 S.E.2d 712

217 S.C. 90

HEWITT v. CHERAW COTTON MILLS et al.

No. 16363.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

May 31, 1950

J. Arthur Knight, Chesterfield, Wise, Whaley & McCutchen Columbia, for appellants.

J. E Dudley, Bennettsville, H. H. Edens, Columbia, for respondent.

TAYLOR, Justice.

On or about October 8, 1947, respondent sustained an injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment by appellant, Cheraw Cotton Mills. The other appellant, United States Casualty Insurance Company, is the insurer under the provisions of the South Carolina Workmen's Compensation Act, Code 1932 § 7035-1 et seq. As a result of this injury, respondent was paid temporary disability from the date of injury until January 28, 1948, at which time appellants ceased making payments upon the grounds that such disability as appellant was then suffering had no causal connection with the injury.

A claim was thereafter filed with the South Carolina Industrial Commission which resulted in an award by the Hearing Commissioner, granting compensation to respondent. The Full Commission affirmed the award of the Single Commissioner, and an appeal was taken to the Common Pleas Court for Chesterfield County, where Honorable J. Woodrow Lewis affirmed the award of the Commission. Appellants now come to this Court upon exceptions, which pose the question of whether or not there is any evidence of probative value from which the Industrial Commission could properly conclude that respondent's disability extended beyond January 28, 1948.

'In reviewing this case on appeal, this Court is of course cognizant of the well-founded rule of law that the Industrial Commission being the fact-finding body and this Court and the Circuit Court both being appellate Courts in workmen's compensation matters, this and the Circuit Courts can only review the facts to determine whether or not there is any competent evidence to support the findings of the fact-finding body. If there is, the Courts are without power to pass upon the force and effect of such evidence. An award may of course be reversed if there is an absence of any competent evidence to support it, but in Workmen's Compensation cases the Courts are not the triers of facts. If the facts proved are capable as a matter of law of sustaining the inference of fact drawn from them by the Industrial Commission, its findings are conclusive in the absence of fraud and neither this Court nor the Court of Common Pleas is at liberty to interfere with them.' Schrader v. Monarch Mills, 215 S.C. 357, 55 S.E.2d 285, 286.

Dr. Boyd, the only physician testifying, stated that his conclusions at the time respondent first came to him were that there 'were no definite signs or symptoms at this time to warrant a diagnosis of a ruptured disc or an instability. The tenderness and muscle spasm in the right side are the result of myositis, traumatic. No surgery indicated. Would advise hospitalization for two weeks with physio-therapy and exercises. At this time there is a definite disability, which will clear up under rest, physio-therapy and corrective exercises. It is possible that a brace might be needed at a later date.'

Later, Mr. Hewitt returned to him and stated that he still had pain in his back. At that time, he was admitted to the hospital and remained several days, suffering from muscle spasm. At the time of dismissal he had been measured for a brace and stated then that he felt perfectly well and was comfortable. Sometime later, he returned again, wearing his brace and complaining of pain in the flank. Not being able to evaluate this pain, Dr. Boyd had him x-rayed and found no evidence of disease or injury to the bone.

On or about the first day of April, respondent reported to the doctor again that he still had pain in his back and was unable to hold himself erect or bend over further, causing him to remain in a stopped position. The brace was adjusted and the doctor states that, in his opinion, the difficulty in his back is purely postural and that he does not think there is any disability in the spine that would warrant his being bent over when he sits and walks. On the 28th of April, the doctor saw him again and found that he continued to sit, stand, and walk in a stooped position, and that he was still suffering from pain but not severe enough to keep him from working.

Dr. Boyd further testified that he is confident that respondent suffered no injury to the spine itself. Upon cross-examination, the following testimony appears:

'Q. What is causing his pain? A. Do you want me to tell you frankly? I don't know whether he has got any pain. There isn't any way for me or you or anybody else to say whether that man has pain, and yet when he tells me that he had one spot that hurt him, and when I examined his back I would go around it and come back to that same spot and he didn't have any pain. The man, when he first came in had a definite spasm of the muscle in his spine, and I think he had a traumatic myositis. His muscles were damaged by whatever accident he had there, that would give him a painful situation, but is does not produce...