Teigue v. Appleton Co.
Decision Date | 31 January 1952 |
Docket Number | No. 16584,16584 |
Citation | 221 S.C. 52,68 S.E.2d 878 |
Parties | TEIGUE v. APPLETON CO. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Doyle & Doyle, Anderson, for appellant.
Robert L. Ballentine, Anderson, for respondent.
This is a Workmen's Compensation case and the question presented is whether or not there was compliance on the part of claimant with Section 7035-25 and Section 7035-26 of the 1942 Code of Laws of South Carolina, the pertinent portions of which are:
'No defect or inaccuracy in the notice shall be a bar to compensation unless the employer shall prove that his interest was prejudiced thereby, and then only to such extent as the prejudice.
'Said notice shall be given personally to the employer or any of his agents upon whom a summons in civil action may be served under the laws of the State, or may be sent by registered letter addressed to the employer at his last known residence or place of business.'
Upon hearing of the cause before the single commissioner claimant testified that he worked only a few hours in 1947, about nineteen or twenty hours in 1948, and two and one-half days in 1949, at which time it is contended he received his injury, and that he had not worked more because he was suffering from a serious heart ailment. He further testified that on March 24, 1949 as a result of his request for employment, he had been assigned very light work which consisted of removing small rolls of cloth, weighing approximately thirty pounds, from a table and placing them on a small hand truck, pushing it about forty feet and unloading on the floor; that while pushing this truck across the floor it became overbalanced because of a depression in the floor and that while attempting to keep the truck from overturning felt a pain in the right side and groin. However, he pushed the truck to the proper place and unloaded it and found that he was suffering from shortness of breath. Mr. Temples, the second hand and his immediate boss, inquired if anything was wrong, to which he replied that he did not think he could make it and wished to go home. At no time did he state that the truck had turned over or that he had strained himself in any way. Mr. Temples then designated one of his fellow workers to return claimant to his home. This was on Thursday. The following Monday, claimant went to see Dr. H. H. Harris who ordered him to bed for several days. No history of any strain or injury was given to Dr. Harris and no claim was filed until July 4, 1949, approximately three and one-half months later. Claimant further testified that he told no one about his injury, not even his fellow employee who carried him to his home at the request of Mr. Temples.
Claimant's wife testified that on about Monday, March 28, 1949, she told Mr. Temples that claimant had injured himself and was having shortness of breath and consequently could not report for work, but even though given many opportunities through leading questions she at no time would say that claimant had received his injury as an employee of appellant.
Appellant denied that claimant had sustained an injury from an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and moved for a nonsuit and dismissal of claimant's case on the grounds that claimant had failed to prove that there had been a proper reporting of this alleged accident as required under Section 7035-25 and Section 7035-26. The motion for nonsuit and dismissal of the case was granted by the Hearing Commissioner, and on June 25, 1950, the Industrial Commission unanimously affirmed the Hearing Commissioner. An appeal was taken from this order to the Circuit Court and on March 31, 1951, an order was filed reversing the Industrial Commission on the grounds that this State is committed to the policy of liberal construction in Workmen's Compensation matters and claimant had substantially complied with Sectiaon 7035-25 and Section 7035-26 of the 1942 Code of Laws of South Carolina.
The employer now appeals to this Court contending that the Circuit Court erred in that there was no compliance by claimant with the provisions of Section 7035-25 and Section 7035-26 of the 1942 Code of Laws of South Carolina.
It is well...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bass v. Isochem, 3996.
...and can furnish medical care for the employee in order to minimize the disability and his own liability. See Teigue v. Appleton Co., 221 S.C. 52, 68 S.E.2d 878 (1952); Hanks, 286 S.C. at 381, 335 S.E.2d at 93. While the notice requirement must be construed liberally in favor of claimants, i......
-
Hiers v. Brunson Const. Co., 16606
...872; Buff v. Columbia Baking Co., 215 S.C. 41, 53 S.E.2d 879; Schrader v. Monarch Mills, 215 S.C. 357, 55 S.E.2d 285; Teigue v. Appleton Company, S.C., 68 S.E.2d 878. Mrs. Hiers, the respondent herein, testified that the deceased was working as a carpenter for the Brunson Construction Compa......
-
Mize v. Sangamo Elec. Co., 18796
...disclosed by the written notice had such been given. Strawhorn v. J. A. Chapman Const. Co., 202 S.C. 43, 24 S.E.2d 116; Teigue v. Appleton Co., 221 S.C. 52, 68 S.E.2d 878; Raley v. City of Camden, 222 S.C. 303, 72 S.E.2d 572; Ricker v. Village Management Corp., 231 S.C. 47, 97 S.E.2d It mig......
-
Etheredge v. Monsanto Co., 3470.
...for the employee in order to minimize the disability and his own liability." Id. at 381, 335 S.E.2d at 93 (citing Teigue v. Appleton Co., 221 S.C. 52, 68 S.E.2d 878 (1952)). The provisions of § 42-15-20 regarding notice should be liberally construed in favor of claimants. Mintz v. Fiske-Car......