Southall v. Eldridge Reams, Inc., 4606

• Citation: 198 Va. 545,95 S.E.2d 145
• Decision Date: 26 November 1956
• Docket Number: No. 4606,4606
• Parties: VALENTINE W. SOUTHALL, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF FRANK T. SOUTHALL, DECEASED v. ELDRIDGE REAMS, INC. Record
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Page 145

95 S.E.2d 145

198 Va. 545

VALENTINE W. SOUTHALL, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF FRANK T. SOUTHALL, DECEASED v. ELDRIDGE REAMS, INC.

Record No. 4606.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

November 26, 1956.

Meredith A. House and W. Griffith Purcell (Purcell, Regirer & House, on brief), for the appellant.

R. R. Parrish (Malcolm M. Christian; Parrish, Butcher & Parrish, on brief), for the appellee.

JUDGE: EGGLESTON

EGGLESTON, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

Frank T. Southall, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, filed a claim for compensation for injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment by Eldridge Reams, Inc. His claim was that on July 6, 1954, in the course of his employment, he became involved in a fisticuff with a fellow-employee, resulting in a severe brain injury and a permanent and total incapacity for work. Upon the evidence adduced the hearing commissioner held that the claimant had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence a causal connection between the blows received by him in the fight, the alleged industrial accident, and his disability. On review the full Commission affirmed and the claimant has appealed. Pending the hearing of the appeal the claimant died and the case was revived in the name of his personal representative.

The substance of the claimant's contention on appeal is that the finding of the Commission as to the lack of proof of causal connection is contrary to the weight of the evidence. Since the determination of this issue is purely factual, under well-settled principles our inquiry is limited to ascertaining whether there is credible evidence to sustain the Commission's finding. If so, that finding is binding on us. Code, § 65-94; 21 Mich. Jur., Workmen's Compensation, § 82, pp. 133-5.

The evidence shows that while the claimant was employed by Eldridge Reams, Inc., as a salesman of used cars, a dispute arose between him and another salesman, J. S. Lyerly, over the division of a commission for the sale of a car. Words led to a fisticuff. The claimant testified that Lyerly struck him several times in the face with his fist, causing his nose and mouth to bleed. He said that one of these blows was so severe as to cause the back of his head to strike the wall. He left his place of employment and went home in a taxicab. At home the bleeding continued and he became nauseated. He stayed in bed for several days and then sought and procured other employment. However, he said, he became dizzy, was unable to work, and quit that employment after four or five days.

Lyerly's version of the severity of the fight is quite different. He said that the encounter lasted not over thirty seconds; that only two or three blows were exchanged; that the fight occurred 'in the middle of the floor;' that claimant was not knocked down nor did he fall or strike his head against the wall or any other object. Lyerly said that his own glasses were broken and face cut in the fight. Both his and claimant's face bled slightly, he said.

C. E. Kersey, a fellow-employee of the two and an eyewitness to the fight, fully corroborated Lyerly's version. He was equally as positive as Lyerly that the claimant was not knocked down nor did his head strike the wall or any other object. The only injury which he observed that the claimant received was a slight nose bleed.

On July 22, sixteen days after his encounter with Lyerly, the claimant entered Johnston-Willis Hospital in Richmond for observation and treatment. He complained of weakness, dizziness and staggering during the past four days. He gave no history of having recently been in a fight or having received a blow or injury to his head. An attending physician diagnosed his condition as 'cerebral arteriosclerosis with early Parkinsonism.' The hospital record shows the diagnosis as 'probable cerebro-vascular accident involving a cerebellar vessel.'

Dr. T. D. Davis first examined the claimant on the day he entered the hospital, but was then unable to determine the cause of his condition. Later when relatives gave the physician a history of the claimant's having been engaged in a severe fight in which his head had struck a table or wall, Dr. Davis concluded that his condition was caused by trauma. Based on this history Dr. Weir M. Tucker, a neurologist and psychiatrist, who examined the claimant on July 24, was of the same opinion.

O...