Ripley v. Anderson Cotton Mills

• Decision Date: 03 December 1946
• Docket Number: 15896.
• Parties: RIPLEY v. ANDERSON COTTON MILLS et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

40 S.E.2d 508

209 S.C. 401

RIPLEY v. ANDERSON COTTON MILLS et al.

No. 15896.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

December 3, 1946

Watkins & Prince, of Anderson, for appellants.

Leon W. Harris, of Anderson, for respondent.

TAYLOR, Justice.

This is a workman's compensation case in which claimant was awarded twenty-five (25%) per cent functional loss of use of the right eye, ten (10%) per cent functional loss of use of the left eye, and One Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars for disfigurement.

The claimant, Carl T. Ripley, while employed in the machine shop of the Anderson Cotton Mills of Anderson, South Carolina received injuries as the result of an explosion which blew him completely from the building, as a result of which he filed claim for injuries to his eyes and asked compensation for bodily disfigurement.

The above award was made pursuant thereto against Anderson Cotton Mills, and General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, Ltd., their insurance carrier.

In due time, application was made for review by the Full Commission who affirmed the award of the Hearing Commission in an Order dated December 20, 1945; thereafter the matter was appealed to the Circuit Court and was heard by the Honorable W. H Grimball, who, by order dated March 20, 1946, affirmed the order of the Commission. Defendants now appeal to this Court upon exceptions which raise the following questions: Was it error to make an award for twenty-five (25%) per cent functional loss of use of the right eye and ten (10%) per cent functional loss of use of the left eye? And was it proper to make an award for One Thousand ($1,000) Dollars for serious bodily disfigurement?

In both questions we are faced with the primary rule of law governing such cases of whether or not there is competent evidence to support the fact-finding body. If there is, this Court is without power to pass upon the force and effect of such evidence.

This Court can review the findings of the Commission only for the purposes of determining whether there is any competent evidence to support the findings of the Commission; and if there is, such findings must be upheld. If the facts proven are capable as a matter of law of sustaining the inferences drawn from them by the Commission, its findings are conclusive in the absence of fraud. Rudd v Fairforest Finishing Co. et al., 189 S.C. 188, 200 S.E. 727; Jeffers v. Manetta Mills et al., 190 S.C. 435, 3 S.E.2d 489; Cagle v. Judson Mills et al., 195 S.C. 346, 11 S.E.2d 376; Buckman v. International Agricultural Corp. et al., 196 S.C. 153, 13 S.E.2d 133; Green v. City of Bennettsville, 197 S.C. 313, 15 S.E.2d 334; Lanford v. Clinton Cotton Mills et al., 204 S.C. 423, 30 S.E.2d 36; Elrod v. Union Bleachery et al., 204 S.C. 481, 30 S.E.2d 73; Crawford et al. v. Town of Winnsboro et al., 205 S.C. 72, 30 S.E.2d 841; Jones v. Anderson Cotton Mills et al., 205 S.C. 247, 31 S.E.2d 447; Branch et al. v. Pacific Mills et al., 205 S.C. 353, 32 S.E.2d 1; Bailey v. Santee River Hardwood Co. et al., 205 S.C. 433, 32 S.E.2d 365; Ervin et al. v. Myrtle Grove Plantation et al., 206 S.C. 41, 32 S.E.2d 877; Shehane v. Springs Cotton Mills et al., 206 S.C. 334, 34 S.E.2d 180; Lewis et al. v. Hamilton Veneer Co. et al., 206 S.C. 349, 34 S.E.2d 220; Dickey v. Springs Cotton Mills, S.C., 39 S.E.2d 501.

It is not necessary that claimant show the extent of disability with mathematical exactness, and direct evidence of the percentage of partial loss of normal efficiency is not essential to the determination of such percentage, and it is not essential that a percentage of disability be specified by any witness. Dickey v. Springs Cotton Mills, supra.

The testimony shows that the claimant, who was inside the machine shop assisting in the welding of an acetylene generator, was blown through the widow and outside the building as a result of the generator exploding,sustainingg various cuts and injuries and what is commonly referred to as a flash burn of the eyes. Dr. Ross testified that he attended Mr Ripley at the hospital, that his eyes were very red and he was also suffering what is called conjunctivitis, which is an inflammation of the conjunctiva, and his own eyes were very sensitive to light at the time. A few days prior to the hearing before the Commissioner, he again examined claimant's eyes and found that he needed glasses and that his eyes were still sensitive to light; that he also suffered from astigmatism which was...