Mandle v. Kelly

• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: GILLESPIE
• Citation: Mandle v. Kelly, 229 Miss. 327, 90 So.2d 645 (Miss. 1956)
• Decision Date: 19 November 1956
• Docket Number: No. 40273,40273
• Parties: Luther MANDLE v. R. O. KELLY, d/b/a R. O. Kelly Cannery & Federated Mutual Implement & Hardware Insurance Company.

Page 645

90 So.2d 645

229 Miss. 327

Luther MANDLE v. R. O. KELLY, d/b/a R. O. Kelly Cannery & Federated Mutual Implement & Hardware Insurance Company.

No. 40273.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 19, 1956.

Jason Floyd, Gulfport, for appellant.

Wallace & Greaves, Gulfport, for appellee.

GILLESPIE, Justice.

Appellant filed claim for compensation under the Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Act, Code 1942, Sec. 6998-01 et seq. The facts are not in dispute.

R. O. Kelly, one of the appellees, operated a cannery at Midville, Georgia, and regularly employed more than eight employees. No business was conducted by the employer outside of Georgia, but he operated two tractor-trailer truck units in delivering the products of his cannery to various points outside the State of Georgia. Appellant and one other employee were employed to operate these trucks. The employer consigned a truck load of the product of his cannery to a point in Louisiana, and shipped it in one of his trucks which was operated by appellant. In order to reach the Louisiana destination, appellant was required to traverse the State of Mississippi along U. S. Highway No. 90, and when appellant reached Kreole, Mississippi, his vehicle was weighed at the official weighing scales and it was determined that too much of the weight load rested on the front axle of the trailer. In order to correct this situation, appellant moved 25 or 30 cases of goods to the rear of the trailer, and while so doing, experienced pain under his short ribs, followed by what he thought was indigestion. His discomfort continued and he sought and obtained medical treatment in Harrison County, Mississippi, where it was determined that he had suffered a spontaneous pneumathorax, and this condition later precipitated a heart attack.

The attorney-referee found that appellant's disability was causally related to his work for employer and that appellant was permanently and totally disabled. Appellant incurred hospital and medical bills amounting to $1,001 in connection with his injuries. These bills are due citizens of this State, and have not been paid. This proceeding was originally instituted by the hospital and physician for the collection of their bills. Appellant later his claim.

After treatment in the hospital in Harrison County, Mississippi, appellant returned to his home in Georgia, where he has since resided. Appellant did not file for compensation benefits under the Georgia Act and when he instituted these proceedings, the one-year statute of limitations had run on his claim under the Georgia Act.

The attorney-referee dismissed appellant's claim on the ground that the Workmen's Compensation Commission was without jurisdiction of the subject matter of the claim, and on successive appeals, this action was affirmed by the Commission and the Circuit Court.

Insofar as the liability of the employer is concerned, there are two questions for our determination: (1) Whether the employee and employer are exempted under Sec. 49(c) of the Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Act, Code of 1942, Vol. 5A, Recompiled, Sec. 6998-55(c), and (2) whether Mississippi has the constitutional power to apply its act under the circumstances of this case.

The provisions of the Mississippi Act provide coverage in this case unless the employee and employer are exempted by the provisions of Sec. 49(c), which is as follows:

'(c) Any employee who has been hired or is regularly employed outside of this state and his employer shall be exempted from the provisions of this act while such employee is temporarily within this state doing work for his employer if such employer has furnished workmen's compensation insurance coverage under the workmen's compensation or similar laws for a state other than this state, so as to cover such employee's employment while in this state, provided the extra-territorial provisions of this act are recognized in such other state and provided employers and employees who are covered in this state are likewise exempted from the application of the workmen's compensation or similar laws of such other state. The benefits under the workmen's compensation act or similar laws of such other state shall be the exclusive remedy against such employer for any injury, whether resulting in death or not, received by such employee while working for such employer in this state.'

The exemption provided in this section is not applicable if the employer has failed to provide compensation insurance coverage under a workmen's compensation or similar law for a state other than this state, or if the extra-territorial provisions of the Mississippi act are not recognized in such other state, or if the workmen's compensation or similar law of such other state does not likewise exempt from its application employees and employers who are covered in this state. The Georgia act is silent as to the extra-territorial provisions of the workmen's compensation or similar laws of other states, and there is no provision for exempting from its application employees and employers when the employee has been hired and is regularly employed outside of Georgia, and such employee is injured while temporarily within Georgia doing work for his employer. The exemption does not apply to the present case, and the Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Act applies to the injury sustained by appellant while temporarily within this State doing work for his employer. La Dew v. La Borde, 216 Miss. 598, 63 So.2d 56, 825.

We now consider the constitutional questions raised by the employer, leaving for later consideration the constitutional questions raised by the appellee, Federated Mutual Employment and Hardware Insurance Company.

The employer set up as a defense the Georgia Compensation Act, Code, Sec. 114-101 et seq., and contends that under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution of the United States, art. 4, Sec. 1, this Court can not constitutionally impose a system of compensation liability on the employer. The Georgia Act provides that the rights and remedies therein granted to an employee are exclusive of all other remedies at common law, or otherwise. Appellant and employer are residents of the State of Georgia, and the contract of hire was a Georgia contract; appellant was injured while temporarily doing work for his employer in the State of Mississippi; appellant received extensive medical treatment in this State for which payment has not been made. This State has a substantial and legitimate interest in these matters and its policy has been declared in its own compensation act. The Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Act was adopted in the exercise of its police power to provide for the welfare of its citizens and others performing labor within its borders, and the subject matter of his legislation is one concerning which this State is competent to legislate. It has been held that the full faith and credit clause does not go so far as to require this State to withhold the application of its own laws because they conflict with the laws of another State under such circumstances as this case presents. Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 306 U.S. 493, 59 S.Ct. 629, 83 L.Ed. 940; Larson's Workmen's Compensation Law, Sec. 8600, et seq.; Carroll v. Lanza, 349 U.S. 408, 75 S.Ct. 804, 99 L.Ed. 1183.

The employer also contends that the...