T. H. Mastin & Co. v. Mangum

• Decision Date: 24 November 1952
• Docket Number: No. 38554,38554
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: T. H. MASTIN & CO. et al. v. MANGUM.

Page 298

61 So.2d 298

215 Miss. 454

T. H. MASTIN & CO. et al. v. MANGUM.

No. 38554.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 24, 1952.

Watkins & Eager, Jackson, for appellant.

A. W. McRaney and Russell & Little, Magee, for appellee.

ALEXANDER, Justice.

This appeal involves a claim under our Workmen's Compensation Law, based upon a disability caused by hernia. The claimant was employed by the Reynolds Lumber Company and was injured when he tripped upon a pile of lumber. His foot caught in a small opening and he was thrown backward injuring his leg. The injury occurred on Nvoember 29, 1950. He returned to the place of employment the following day but did not work after the night of the injury. He consulted a physician after two or three days and was placed in a hospital on December 5. On December 16 he left the hospital and returned home. His complaint to the physician was that his leg and foot were swelling and that he suffered considerable pain in that region. The physician stated that the complaint involved pain in the right knee and right side of the lower back. He made no further examination and was told by the claimant that he thought that he would get along all right.

Although the claimant stated in his testimony that after the fall he 'hurt all over', the suffering and symptoms localized in the region indicated. On December 21 he experienced a sudden stinging sensation in the lower abdomen and noticed a protrusion indicating rupture. He stated that he had never had such symptoms or indications theretofore.

There was introduced a sworn statement executed by the appellee on February 28, 1951, in which he stated that neither at the time of the fall nor during the period of his confinement in the hospital did he experience any of the pain or symptoms indicating hernia, and that he had never been bothered thereby until after he had returned home.

This appeal involves Chapter 412, Laws of 1950, Section 6(f), as follows:

'In all cases of claim for hernia, it shall be shown by a preponderance of the evidence:

'1. That the descent or protrusion of the hernia or rupture immediately followed as the result of sudden effort, severe strain, or the application of force to the abdominal wall;

'2. That there was severe pain in the region of the hernia or rupture;

'3. That there has been no descent or protrusion of the hernia or rupture prior to the accident for which compensation is claimed;

'4. That the physical distress resulting from the descent or protrusion of the hernia or rupture was noticed immediately by claimant, and communicated to his employer within a reasonable time;

'5. That the physical distress following the descent or protrusion of the hernia or rupture was such as to require the attendance of a licensed physician or surgeon within five (5) days after the injury for which compensation is claimed. Post-operative hernias shall be considered as original hernias.'

Our attention is drawn particularly to paragraphs 1 and 4. In this connection the testimony of the appellee which is summarized above is to be taken with the testimony of his physician who stated that his physical examination of appellee extended only to the region affected, which region was from a point about 4 inches above the knee down to the ankle. There being no other complaints he made no further examination but did diagnose the condition as hernia on December 23, two days after its occurrence.

There is no question but that the appellee suffered an injury in the course of his employment on November 29 and that he suffered a hernia on December 21. There remains therefore only the issue of a causal connection between the injury and the hernia. Upon this point the testimony of his physician must be examined. When asked whether in...