Shillinglaw v. Springs Cotton Mills

• Decision Date: 12 November 1946
• Docket Number: 15886.
• Citation: 40 S.E.2d 502,209 S.C. 379
• Parties: SHILLINGLAW v. SPRINGS COTTON MILLS et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

40 S.E.2d 502

209 S.C. 379

SHILLINGLAW v. SPRINGS COTTON MILLS et al.

No. 15886.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

November 12, 1946

Osborne, Butler & Moore, of Spartanburg, for appellants.

Gregory & Gregory, of Lancaster, for respondent.

OXNER, Justice.

This is a workman's compensation case involving disfigurement. Claimant, in the course of his employment on January 16 1945, suffered electric burns on the face, arms, hands and neck. He was paid temporary total disability from the date of the accident until he returned to work. There was no permanent disability. Thereafter a hearing was had on the claim for disfigurement at which neither the employer nor the carrier appeared. There was no stenographic report of the proceeding. The hearing Commissioner made notes of the testimony offered and thereafter awarded $1200 'for serious bodily disfigurement.' The full Commission, on application by the employer and carrier, reviewed the award and a majority of the Commission made the following factual findings with reference to the claim for disfigurement:

'That the testimony in the case and the records in the file show that the claimant has a scar on his right wrist 1 1/2"' wide and 2 1/2"' long; a scar on the left side of his hand and scars above the elbow; scars on the left wrist and hand and burns on his arm; right shoulder and right side; tightness and discoloration under the neck, all of which constitutes serious bodily disfigurement. There is also a dark discoloration under both eyes which constitutes a serious facial disfigurement.'

On these findings of fact, an award of $1200 'for serious bodily and facial disfigurement' was made by the Commission. The employer and carrier appealed to the Court of Common Pleas. That Court affirmed the award and this appeal followed. The only question necessary for us to determine is the contention of appellants that the award includes disfigurement compensation for scars which have not been shown by the evidence or the facts found by the Commission to be of such character as to constitute a serious disfigurement within the contemplation of the provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act authorizing compensation for 'serious facial or head disfigurement' and 'for any serious bodily disfigurement.' Section 7035-34(t), Code of 1942.

The word 'serious,' as used in the phrases mentioned, has been defined by this Court in a number of cases. Poole v Saxon Mills et al., 192 S.C. 339, 6 S.E.2d 761; Stone v. Ware Shoals Mfg. Co. et al, 192 S.C. 459, 7 S.E.2d 226; Hamilton v. Little et al., 197 S.C. 434 15 S.E.2d 662; Parrott v. Barfield Used Parts et al., 206 S.C. 381, 34 S.E.2d 802; Mitchum v. Inman Mills et al., 40 S.E.2d 38. It will be noted from these decisions and others that in order for bodily disfigurement to be compensable, it was formerly necessary to show that it was such as to affect claimant's earning capacity or ability to obtain employment. This requirement was eliminated by the 1941 amendment (42 St. at L., page 221) to the section of the Act under consideration. But it is still required that the claimant show that the alleged disfigurement is of a serious nature. It must be 'much more than slight and partaking of permanency.'

Appellants concede that the scar on claimant's right wrist constitutes a compensable bodily disfigurement, but contend that the other scars do not and were improperly taken into consideration by the Commission in fixing the amount of the award. Appellants further argue that the alleged discoloration under claimant's eyes is not of such character as to constitute a serious facial disfigurement.

It will be observed that after enumerating the various scars found on claimant, but without undertaking, except as to the right wrist, to describe their size, nature or appearance, the Commission says ' all of which constitute serious bodily disfigurement.' (Italics ours.) Although there were no factual findings made warranting the conclusion that these other scars were of a serious nature, they were all apparently included in determining the amount of disfigurement awarded. The same criticism may be made of the finding as to alleged facial disfigurement.

While exactness of form and procedure is not required of the Industrial Commission (Henderson v. Graniteville Co., 197 S.C. 420, 15 S.E.2d 637), it is the duty of that body to make such specific and definite findings as would enable this Court to properly review the questions of law involved and determine whether the general findings should stand. Flaherty's case, 316 Mass. 719, 56 N.E.2d 880; Farmer v. Bemis Lumber Co., 217 N.C. 158, 7 S.E.2d 376. It is our duty, in reviewing cases such as the one at bar, to ascertain whether the required findings have been made and whether those findings are supported by competent evidence. Here findings of fact essential to support a disfigurement award for some of the scars on claimant's person are lacking.

The following language of the Court in Chambers v. Thomas Roulston, Inc., et al., 214 A.D. 825, 210 N.Y.S. 638, is apposite to certain features of the case before us: 'The evidence failed to show, and the findings omit to state, the precise nature and extent of the disfigurement found. Without such evidence, and such a finding, we are unable to say that the disfigurement was 'serious' and 'permanent,' and therefore cannot affirm the award.' The award was reversed and claim remitted. Also see Pavik v. Glen Alden Coal Co.,...