Strawhorn v. J. A. Chapman Const. Co

Citation24 S.E.2d 116
Decision Date22 January 1943
Docket NumberNo. 15492.,15492.
PartiesSTRAWHORN. v. J. A. CHAPMAN CONST. CO. et al.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

24 S.E.2d 116

STRAWHORN.
v.
J. A. CHAPMAN CONST. CO. et al.

No. 15492.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Jan. 22, 1943.


[24 S.E.2d 117]

Appeal from Common Pleas Court, of Greenwood County; C. C. Featherstone, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Mrs. E. V. Strawhorn, formerly Mrs. W. D. Davis, and dependent children of W. D. Davis, claimants, for death of W. D. Davis, their father, opposed by J. A. Chapman Construction Company and/or Mathews Cotton Mill, employer, and Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, insurer. From a judgment affirming an award to claimants, the employer and insurer appeal.

Affirmed.

Grier, McDonald & Todd, of Greenwood, for appellant.

James P. Nickles, of Abbeville, and W. H. Nicholson and J. Perrin Anderson, both of Greenwood, for respondent.

STUKES, Justice.

This was a claim for workmen's compensation by the widow and dependent children of W. D. Davis, deceased, formerly a painter for Mathews Cotton Mill near Greenwood, and the appeal is by the employer, its painting contractor and the insurance carrier. The hearing commissioner denied compensation for lack of evidence of an accident, within the terms of the compensation law, but the majority of the Industrial Commission held to the contrary and was affirmed by the Circuit Court. The appeal from the latter to this Court is upon numerous exceptions, but in appellants' brief they are reduced to three questions, the first two of which really make one, to wit: Was the death of the employee caused by accident or was it the result of a non-compensable disease? And the third question challenges the sufficiency of the compliance with Sections 22 and 23 of the Act relating to notice of the alleged accident and injury, Code 1942, §§ 7035-25, 7035-26.

Deceased was thirty-five years old, of former good health and habits, had been a house painter for fifteen years and for this employer about eighteen months until August 28, 1940, when he became suddenly ill with abdominal pains, nausea and fever, all symptoms of lead poisoning. He consulted a physician near his place of employment who gave him morphine and let him go to his home some miles away where after a few days he called in a local doctor who treated him a short time and then sent him to the Anderson County Hospital. There he lingered hopelessly for weeks and despite diagnosis and treatment by several physicians developed further typical symptoms, neuritis and mental deterioration, and was sent home to die on October 27, 1940, and death occurred five days later. The several physicians who testified agreed that it was a plain case of lead poisoning, to which painters are often subject in lesser degree, but a physician for claimants, who did not see the deceased and testified only as an expert, diagnosed the case as acute lead poisoning, induced by a large and unusual inhalation of old paint, powdered by the process of removal, and was allowed to testify that the case involved an accident in that it was unusual and unexpected. Another physician (who had treated the deceased while he was in the hospital) gave his opinion that the fatality came from an exacerbation of a

[24 S.E.2d 118]

chronic condition, that there had been a slow accumulation of lead over the years in the system of the deceased which in time was sufficient to cause the acute condition of poisoning which resulted in death.

All of the physicians agreed upon the basic diagnosis and all had seen during their varied, long experiences cases of lead poisoning, but none had seen a case with such acute and violent symptoms and none testified to knowledge of a former fatal case. Analysis of the blood of the deceased, made while he was a patient in the hospital, disclosed a very large amount of lead, several times that in the blood of a normal person.

The case resolves itself into whether the deceased was exposed in his employment to the taking of lead into his system, and whether he did so take it,-in such quantity and under such circumstances as to constitute an accident, causing his acute illness and subsequent death. The Commission so found and the question before this Court is, was...

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