Lucedale Veneer Co. v. Rogers, 37591

Decision Date23 October 1950
Docket NumberNo. 37591,37591
Citation48 So.2d 148,211 Miss. 613
PartiesLUCEDALE VENEER CO. v. ROGERS.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Heidelberg & Roberts, Hattiesburg, for appellant.

T. H. Hillman, Wm. S. Murphy, Lucedale, for appellee.

LEE, Justice.

Rogers filed his claim with the Workmen's Compensation Commission against Lucedale Veneer Company and its insurer for compensation benefits on account of an alleged hernia. The matter was heard by a Commissioner, and the claim was disallowed. Upon a review by the full Commission, the order of the hearing officer was affirmed. Thereupon, Rogers appealed to the Circuit Court of George County, where the order of the Commission was reversed and the benefits were awarded. The Veneer Company and its insurer appeal here.

The benefits were claimed under paragraph (f), Section 8, Chapter 354, Laws 1948, which is as follows:

'In all cases of claims for hernia it shall be shown to the satisfaction of the compensation commission:

'1. That the descent of the hernia immediately followed as the result of sudden effort, severe strain, or the application of force directly to the abdominal wall;

'2. That there was severe pain in the hernial region '3. That such prostration resulted so that the employee was compelled to cease work immediately;

'4. That the occurrence of the hernia was noticed by the claimant and communicated to the employer within forty-eight (48) hours.

'5. That the physical distress following the occurrence of the hernia was such as to require the attendance of a licensed physician or surgeon within forty-eight (48) hours after such occurrence.'

The Commission, in denying such benefits, by its order held. (A) That the proof failed to show satisfactorily that the condition required by Items (1), (2), (3) and (5), supra, were met. (B) As to Item (4), supra, that Rogers failed to return to work the next day, because he did not have transportation; but that, on the following day, he did report for work, and on being advised by the foreman that his job had already been filled, he then told the foreman that he could not work, and wanted to go to a doctor for treatment. And (C) the evidence failed to show that Rogers lifted any heavy object, suffered any unusual strain, fell, or otherwise did anything to cause a hernia.

While the appellants make several assignments of error, these, in fact, all deal with the proposition that the court should have affirmed the finding of the Commission that, under the law and the evidence, the proof was insufficient to establish a compensable injury.

Thus it is necessary to recapitulate the facts and consider their sufficiency under the applicable law. Such facts were established as follows: Rogers had worked for appellant eight months and had never had a hernia. About 9:30 in the morning of May 2, 1949, he was taking several slabs off of a conveyor belt, which was about waist high. These slabs each weighed eight or ten pounds, and probably more. He experienced a sensation like a bee sting in the region of his left groin; the second time, it was worse; it affected him in the afternoon when he went home, and he suffered severe pain that night. He did not return to the plant the next day, because his car was broken down and he was without transportation. On the following day, Wednesday, he reported to his foreman about 6 o'clock in the morning, and asked if there was another man in his place; and upon being advised that such was true, he stated that he was unable to work anyhow, and that he had returned to tell the foreman of his injury on the previous Monday. The foreman sent Rogers to a doctor, and this examination disclosed that he was suffering from a hernia. Rogers had worked the balance of the day on Monday without making any complaint.

From the above facts, it is clear that Rogers suffered a hernia while taking slabs off of the conveyor...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Brookhaven Steam Laundry v. Watts, 38055
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • November 26, 1951
    ...or contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Brown Buick Co. v. Smith's Estate, Miss. 1951, 52 So.2d 664; Lucedale Veneer Co. v. Rogers, Miss. 1950, 48 So.2d 148, suggestion of error overruled, 1951, 53 So.2d 69; see also 58 Am.Jur., Workmen's Compensation, Secs. The 'injury' mus......
  • Meridian Professional Baseball Club v. Jensen
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • October 10, 2002
    ...523 So.2d 329, 332 (Miss.1988); Nat'l Sur. Corp. v. Kemp, 217 Miss. 537, 543, 64 So.2d 723, 725 (1953); Lucedale Veneer Co. v. Rogers, 211 Miss. 613, 622, 48 So.2d 148, 150 (1950). ¶ 11. We are aided in our construction of statutes by definitions provided by the act, such as the definition ......
  • Sanders v. B. E. Walker Const. Co., 43163
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • December 14, 1964
    ...the law and the evidence', in no way minimized the solemn declaration, supra. Our first decision, in the case of Lucedale Veneer Company v. Rogers, 211 Miss. 613, 48 So.2d 148, 53 So.2d 69 (1950), said that '[t]he construction must be sensible as well as The Court came to the conclusion tha......
  • Lucedale Veneer Co. v. Rogers, 37591
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 14, 1951
  • 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