Polk v. E. I. duPont de Nemours Co.

• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MOSS; LEWIS, BUSSEY and BRAILSFORD, JJ., and LIONEL K. LEGGE
• Citation: Polk v. E. I. duPont de Nemours Co., 158 S.E.2d 765, 250 S.C. 468 (S.C. 1968)
• Decision Date: 04 January 1968
• Docket Number: No. 18744,18744
• Parties: James K. POLK, Jr., Appellant, v. E. I. duPONT de NEMOURS CO., Inc., Respondent.

Page 765

158 S.E.2d 765

250 S.C. 468

James K. POLK, Jr., Appellant, v. E. I. duPONT de NEMOURS CO., Inc., Respondent.

No. 18744.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Jan. 4, 1968.

Stuckey & Stuckey, Bishopville, Boyd, Bruton, Knowlton & Tate, Columbia, for appellant.

Nelson, Mullins, Grier & Scarborough, Columbia, for respondent.

MOSS, Chief Justice.

This case arose under the South Carolina Workmen's Compensation Act, Section 72--1 et seq., Code of 1962. There is here involved an appeal from an order of the circuit court reversing an award of the Industrial Commission in favor of James K. Polk, Jr., the appellant herein.

The appellant alleges that on March 15, 1962, while in the employ of E. I. du Pont de Nemours Co., Inc., the respondent herein, he fell and suffered a neck injury and other injuries and that as a result thereof he is now totally and completely disabled and entitled to benefits for total disability under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The respondent denied that the appellant sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment which resulted in any compensable disability.

A hearing was held before a single commissioner on November 8, 1962, for the purpose of determining whether or not the appellant sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, and, if so, to determine what benefits and compensation he was entitled to under the Act. Thereafter, the single commissioner, on April 22, 1963, filed an opinion and award in which he found that the appellant was totally disabled because of his injury and was entitled to compensation. The respondent appealed to the full commission and the award of the single commissioner was affirmed in an opinion and award filed on August 28, 1963. By appropriate exceptions the respondent appealed from the award of the full commission to the circuit court for Kershaw County, and such appeal was heard by the Honorable John Grimball, Resident Judge, who issued his order vacating and setting aside the award of the commission. Timely appeal to the court followed.

The question here for determination is whether there was any competent evidence to support the findings of fact by the commission and the award made pursuant thereto. If there was sufficient evidence to support the findings of the commission, then the trial judge was in error in reversing the commission. However, if there was no competent evidence to support the findings of the commission, affirmance of his decision is required.

We have held that a claimant who asserts his right to compensation must establish by the preponderance of the evidence the facts which will entitle him to an award under the Act and such award must not be based on surmise, conjecture or speculation. It is well settled that in workmen's compensation cases the commission is the fact-finding body and that on appeal the circuit court and this court are limited in their review of the facts to a determination of whether or not there is any competent evidence to support the factual findings of the commission. Where there is a conflict in the evidence, the findings of fact by the commission are conclusive. It is only where the evidence gives rise to but one reasonable inference that the question becomes one of law for the court to decide. Herndon v. Morgan Mills, Inc., 246 S.C. 201, 143 S.E.2d 376.

The record shows that the appellant began working with the respondent on May 4, 1952, and while he had had trouble with his back and shoulders on various occasions he got along fairly well and was working until June 15, 1961. At this time he states that he and a fellow employee were changing a press, that the cloth was hard to pull off, and that, as he gave a yank to get it off he felt an awful pain in the back of his right shoulder. He was treated by Dr. Robert Watkins, the plant physician, who gave him injections for his pain, but as he did not seem to improve he went to see his family physician, a Dr. Faver, a surgeon at the Lee County Hospital, by whom he was treated until July 16, 1961. The appellant was admitted to the Camden Hospital on July 17, 1961, where he was seen and treated by Dr. Herbert Schrieber. The appellant was treated by Dr. Schrieber at the Camden Hospital for a week or ten days and as the pain persisted he was then placed in the Columbia Hospital where he remained until August 10, 1961. He was returned home and remained under the care of Dr. Schrieber until the middle of September, 1961, and the latter part of September, 1961, he was sent to the Medical College in Charleston, South Carolina, where he remained in traction on a hard bed until he returned to Camden on October 10, 1961. The appellant returned to work with the respondent on November 1, 1961. Although he was still suffering from pain in his neck and shoulders he states that he got along fairly well until March 15, 1962. At that time he said he slipped on a wet floor, falling flat on his back. He states that the pain was very severe in his neck and back at that time; however, he was able to continue work until the shift changed, which was only several hours after his fall. The appellant continued on his job until March 24, 1962, this being his last work day.

The appellant frankly admitted that he did not report the accident of June 15, 1961, to anyone and, although he was seen by a number of doctors, he made no mention of ever having hurt himself by an accident. He also readily admitted that he made a claim for nonoccupational group accident and health benefits from the Equitable Life Insurance Society for the June 15, 1961 accident and for the March 15, 1962 accident. The appellant admitted that in...