Smehane v. Mills

Decision Date16 May 1945
Docket NumberNo. 15736.,15736.
Citation34 S.E.2d 180
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesSMEHANE . v. SPRINGS COTTON MILLS et al.

200 S.C. 334

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Lancaster County; Wm. H. Grim-ball, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by James L. Shehane, claimant, opposed by Springs Cotton Mills, employer, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, insurance carrier. From an order of the court of common pleas, setting aside the findings and award of the Industrial Commission in favor of claimant, the claimant appeals.

Order of the court of common pleas reversed and award of the Industrial Commission affirmed.

L. R. Jones, of Kershaw, for appellant.

J. E. McDonald, of Chester, for respondent.

TAYLOR, Justice.

On December 23, 1943, while employed by Springs Cotton Mills, Lancaster, South Carolina, the claimant, James L. Shehane, who had been in said employment for about eight years prior thereto, as a weaver, while passing between two looms in the scope of his employment, stepped on a piece of slick paper. His foot slipped and caught between lay and shipper lock whereby he was struck on the left testicle, injuring same and front portion of his body in that region.

On or about the 21st day of February, 1944, an agreement for compensation for temporary total disability was entered into whereby claimant was to receive compensation at the rate of $19.20 per week based upon an average weekly wage of $32. Thereafter on March 7, 1944, a final compensation settlement receipt was executed showing a total amount of $49.70 was paid for total temporary disability. The receipt showed that disability terminated as of February 27, 1944, but other records show (by way of medical records) that claimant continued to be treated by the physician.

Thereafter upon application by the claimant a hearing was held on the 21st day of June, 1944, by John W. Duncan, Commissioner, to determine whether or not employee had been paid compensation to which he was entitled, extent of disability, and any other questions which may arise under the terms of the law. On August 11, 1944, an opinion and award in favor of claimant was filed by the said commissioner.

Thereafter on the 22nd day of August, 1944, the defendants through their attorneys requested a review of the findings by the South Carolina Industrial Commission, who on the 8th day of September, 1944, passed an order refusing the application for a review of the findings of the hearing Commissioner and sustaining same.

On the 9th day of October, 1944, the defendants appealed to the Court of Common Pleas for Lancaster County, South Carolina, from the findings and award. Honorable Wm. Grimball passed an order on the 14th day of December, 1944, setting aside the findings and award of the Commission and it is from this order that the claimant now appeals to this Court upon the following exceptions:

"1. That his Honor erred in holding that there was no evidence in the records to sustain the findings of the Commission.

"2. That his Honor erred in determining the weight or effect of the testimony given at the hearing.

"3. That his Honor erred in holding that claimant's ailment was the result of disease and did not arise out of and in the course of his employment.

"4. That his Honor erred in finding of facts in the case since the Commission is the fact-finding body and his Honor is bound thereby."

In reviewing this case on appeal, this Court is of course cognizant of the well founded rule of law that the Industrial Commission being the fact-finding body and this Court and the Circuit Court both being appellate Courts in workmen's compensation matters, this and the Circuit Courts can only review the facts to determine whether or not there is any competent evidence to support the findings of the fact-finding body. If there is, the Courts are without power to pass upon the force and effect of such evidence. An award may of course be reversed if there is an absence of any competent evidence to support it, but in Workmen's Compensation cases the Courts are not the triers of facts. If the facts proved are capable as a matter of law of sustaining the inferences of fact drawn from them by the Industrial Commission its findings are conclusive in the absence of fraud and neither this Court nor the Court of Common Pleas is at liberty to interfere with them. Anderson v. Campbell Tile Co., 202 S.C. 54, 24 S.E.2d 104; Crawford et al. v. Town of Winnsboro et al., 203 S.C. 72, 30 S.E.2d 841; Lanford v. Clinton Cotton Mills, 204 S.C. 423, 30 S.E.2d 36; Straw-horn v. J. A. Chapman Const. Co., 202 S.C. 43, 24 S.E.2d 116; Cokeley v. Robert Lee, Inc., 197 S.C. 157, 14 S.E.2d 889.

Keeping the above in mind this Court has studied the record closely in order to ascertain whether or not there is any competent evidence to support the award of the Industrial Commission which is the fact-finding body in Workmen's Compensation matters for this State.

Dr. Hamilton W. McKay testified in effect that he had specialized in genitourinary surgery, that he examined the claimant February 22, 1944, at the request of Dr. C. W. Morrison of Lancaster, S. C, and that he found no evidence of trauma. That claimant suffered from an enlarged and inflamed veromontanum but in his opinion this condition was in no way connected with trauma.

Dr. C. W. Morrison testified that he is the surgeon for the Springs Cotton Mill at Lancaster, that he examined the claimant in December, 1943, and found him suffering from an injury to his left testicle. Since the questions in this case involve a construction of the testimony this Court is taking the liberty of quoting quite extensively therefrom. The following are extracts from Dr. Morrison's testimony.

"Q. Dr. Morrison, you had occasion to examine Mr. James L. Shehane back in December, 1943? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. If you don't mind, just go ahead and state to the Court what you found him suffering with? A. Well, he had an injury to his testicle, right or left--I have forgotten which, now.

"The Claimant: Left. A. Left, and it was bluish, you know, swelled, and he gave a history of having fallen against some machine down there at the mill.

"Q. Is it your opinion, Doctor, that this welling, or bluish color, was caused by a lick? A. I think so.

"The Court: Was it trauma? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. He did have a traumatic injury? A. 'Yes.

"The Court: Go ahead. A. I don't think there was any disease back of it.

"Q. He had no disease? A. None back of it at the time.

"Q. Have you had occasion to examine him lately, Doctor? A. I guess some weeks ago, now.

"Q. You don't remember off-hand? A. No, sir.

• "Q. From the last date of your examination, Doctor, from the injury which he was suffering with could you tell about how long that would exist--the injury would interfere with his work as a weaver in the mill? A. Well, the swelling in a reasonable time--I don't remember just how long off-hand it was, but the swelling disappeared so I recommended sending him to an urologist. I have forgotten exactly when that was, but after he was treated for a reasonable length of time the swelling disappeared.

"Q. Did he come back to you about his injury after he tried to go back to work? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. He did come back to you? A. Oh, yes.

"Q. For further examination for pain after he tried to work for a little time? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. And from your examination was that pain, in your opinion, caused as a result of that blow on the testicle? A. Icouldn't say that. I don't think that the pain existing this long could be caused entirely by the injury.

"Q. But you didn't find anything otherwise that would cause it? A. No, sir.

"The Court: Did you ever dismiss him to return to work? A. I told him to try to work and see how he got along.

"Q. And he did work and came back to you? A. Yes, sir; I think he tried to work some.

"Q. Did he come back to you after he tried to work? A. That is my recollection.

"Q. And you referred him to Dr. McKay in Charlotte? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. Do you do medical--surgical work for the Springs Cotton Mill in Lancaster? A. Some of it.

"Q. Some of it? A. All of it, yes, sir.

"O. Did you ever recommend that he wear a suspensory? A. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. You see that is just as normal as the other. Of course, if the man says he has pain he is the one that knows it.

"Q. You wouldn't attempt to say that he is malingering? A. I wouldn't say that.

"Q. Now, if a man had a veromontanum which was red, inflamed, could that cause pain? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. Would you normally expect pain? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. Now, Doctor, in your opinion, would you say, or not, that a blow on the testicle would cause the veromontanum to become inflamed and red where the epididymis is not enlarged and there is no induration or tenderness? A. There would be an induration--it forms a knot in it, I mean--I couldn't say now whether a blow caused that, or not, I just don't know.

"The Court: Could a blow on the testicle cause epididymitis? A. Yes, sir.

"The Court: Could a man develop a varicocele from a blow? A. Oh, yes."

An examination of the testimony of the rlaimant reveals the following:

"Q. I believe you were injured on December the 23rd, 1943? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. From December the 23rd, 1943, up until you received this check you suffered from an injury you received at the Springs Cotton Mills at Lancaster? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. Will you state to this Court what is your condition; has it healed or improved; if so, to what extent? A. No, sir, it has not healed at all. It is still--I am still suffering. It swells when I try to work.

"Q. State whether or not you are still suffering from the effects of that wound?

"The Court: Was it a wound or a blow? A. It was a blow.

"Q. Upon what part of your body? A, On the left side here (indicating).

"The Court: Scrotum.

"Q. On your ball? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. And you stated when you try to work it swells? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. And affects you so you are unable to work? A. Yes, sir.

"Q. Do you try to work any? A. Yes, sir, I have tried...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT