Mitchum v. Inman Mills

• Decision Date: 31 October 1946
• Docket Number: 15878.
• Citation: 40 S.E.2d 38,209 S.C. 307
• Parties: MITCHUM v. INMAN MILLS et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

40 S.E.2d 38

209 S.C. 307

MITCHUM v. INMAN MILLS et al.

No. 15878.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

October 31, 1946

Osborne Butler & Moore, of Spartanburg, for appellants.

Williams Felton & Powell, of Spartanburg, for respondent.

TAYLOR, Justice.

This appeal comes from an order of the Honorable T. S. Sease resident Circuit Judge of the Seventh Circuit, affirming an award of the South Carolina Industrial Commission in which claimant-respondent was awarded $400 for serious facial disfigurement.

Claimant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment with the Inman Mills on May 28, 1945. Appellant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company is the insurance carrier for the employer. The hearing was held before Commissioner Dukes who filed his opinion and award September 25, 1945, awarding respondent the sum of $400 for 'serious bodily disfigurement.' A review was held before the full Commission which affirmed the award of the single Commissioner, in toto, January, 7 1946, adopting the hearing Commissioner's award as that of the majority of the Commission. An appeal was duly taken to the Circuit Court which affirmed the award of the Commission, and defendants now appeal to this Court upon exceptions which present the question of whether or not Claimant sustained such facial or head disfigurement as to be compensable under the South Carolina Workmen's Compensation Act.

Section 7035-34(t), 1942 Code for South Carolina, reads as follows 'In case of serious facial or head disfigurement the industrial commission shall award proper and equitable compensation not to exceed $2,500.00.'

In Ferguson v. State Highway Department, 197 S.C. 520, 15 S.E.2d 775, 778, where evidence showed that claimant had a white spot of the pupil of the eye, this Court said: 'the word 'serious,' used in the connection in which it is now being considered, is said to be: 'Used in the sense that the disfigurement should be much more than slight, and partaking of permanency.' And 'disfigurement' is defined as 'that which impairs or injures the beauty, symmetry, or appearance of a person or thing; that which renders unsightly, misshapen, or imperfect, or deforms in some manner.''

In the case of Poole v. Saxon Mills, 192 S.C. 339, 6 S.E.2d 761, 764, this Court laid down the definition of requirements for compensibility in a case of head or facial disfigurement as follows:

'In Superior Min. Co. v. Industrial Commission, 309 Ill. 339, 141 N.E. 165, 166, the word 'disfigurement' is defined as 'that which impairs or injures the beauty, symmetry, or appearance of a person or thing; that which renders unsightly, misshapen, or imperfect, or deforms in some manner.' In Dickson v. United States Sheet & Window Glass Co., 3 La.App. 83, Webster's definition of 'a change of external form to the worse' is adopted. Black's Legal Dictionary, 3d Ed., p. 589, defines 'disfigurement' in the identical language used in Superior Min. Co. v. Industrial Commission, supra, and after citing and quoting from that authority in the prevailing opinion in Murdaugh v. Robert Lee Construction Co., supra (185 S.C. 497, 194 S.E. 447, 453), Mr. Justice Bonham stated: 'It will be conceded, I think, that a deformity may render one grotesque, unsightly, obnoxious, even repulsive to others.'

'While the definition of the word 'disfigurement' would no doubt permit of a lengthy dissertation, and of...