Union Producing Co. v. Simpson's Dependents, No. 43208

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Writing for the CourtGILLESPIE
Citation251 Miss. 183,168 So.2d 808
PartiesUNION PRODUCING COMPANY and Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York v. DEPENDENTS OF Emmette Clinton SIMPSON, Deceased.
Decision Date23 November 1964
Docket NumberNo. 43208

Page 808

168 So.2d 808
251 Miss. 183
UNION PRODUCING COMPANY and Fidelity & Casualty Company of
New York
v.
DEPENDENTS OF Emmette Clinton SIMPSON, Deceased.
No. 43208.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Nov. 23, 1964.

[251 MISS 184]

Page 809

Elizabeth Hulen and Watkins & Eager, Jackson, for appellant.

[251 MISS 186] J. A. Travis, Jr., Jackson, and Holmes & Cortright, Yazoo City, for appellee.

[251 MISS 187] GILLESPIE, Justice.

The widow and sole dependent of Emmette Clinton Simpson, deceased, hereinafter called Employee, made claim for death benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Law against Union Producing Company, the Employer, and its compensation carrier. After a lengthy hearing, the attorney-referee awarded claimant death benefits. The Workmen's Compensation Commission affirmed, and on appeal to the circuit court, the Commission's award was affirmed. The Employer and its carrier appeal to this Court.

Employee died of myocardial infarction following coronary occlusion, after suffering for a long period of time from progressive atherosclerosis.

Employer operates 125 oil wells in the Tinsley Field, and maintains certain buildings on its leases at Tinsley, about twelve miles from Yazoo City, Mississippi. The production office is located about twenty steps from the warehouse, in which latter building the supplies are kept and issued to the crews operating Union's oil wells in the Tinsley Field.

Prior to 1951 Employee had been working for Union in Alabama and in that year was transferred to Mississippi as a clerk in the production office at Tinsley. Up until about a year prior to his death, his work was exclusively in the production office and consisted of office work. He lived in Yazoo City and commuted to and from work in his own automobile or that of a co-employee under a car pool arrangement. About a year prior to his death, Employee began working four hours a day from Tuesday through Friday in the warehouse office, and the remaining twenty-four hours a week he continued to work in the production office. His work [251 MISS 188] in the production office consisted chiefly in making daily reports to the Jackson and Shreveport offices of the operation of Union's wells, occasionally answering the telephone, paying bills, and making up weekly and monthly reports to the Jackson and Shreveport offices.

The proof showed without dispute that Employee had no supervisory duties, and he had ample time to do his work, and was not crowded or rushed for time. The production office was air-conditioned. The steps leading up to the production office contained only one or two risers. His work required no lifting, stooping or physical exertion, it being solely paper work.

The work in the warehouse was done in an air-conditioned office and Employee's work there consisted of transferring requisitions and orders to the ledger and other paper work; he worked under the storekeeper, who completed any work that might not be finished by Employee during the four hours he worked in the warehouse from Tuesday through Friday of each week. There were two or three steps from the ground to the warehouse office. There was

Page 810

no lifting, stooping or straining involved in this work, since it was solely paper work. Occasionally Employee would go into the warehouse to point out an object to some of the other employees but he was not required to manually handle anything in the warehouse. The warehouse itself was not air-conditioned and would become hot, but it was ventilated with a fan.

After Employee died, Union did not employ anyone in his place. It was not necessary to do so because the work he had been doing was absorbed by the storekeeper in the warehouse and by other employees in the production office.

Deceased Employee was 49 years old when he died. He had had high blood pressure for approximately eight years, which had gotten progressively worse, and for a long time had suffered from coronary atherosclerosis. [251 MISS 189] He had bursitis in his shoulders, from which he suffered considerably; he had a dislocated disc in the cervical region which caused pain and discomfort. He contacted filariasis while in the U.S. Marines which caused swelling of the hands, feet and legs. He had hypertension and nervousness, and suffered pain in his chest, arms and back and shortness of breath. He had an episode about five months before he died when he was mowing his lawn at home and complained of suffering from his chest but recovered after a short rest. Employee had recently reduced from an overweight condition of 231 pounds to about 181 pounds.

Employee's wife, claimant, testified that Employee told her of the various pains from which he suffered and that he would hurt if he sat in one position for any considerable length of time; that he worried about the possibility of having to give up his job because of his physical ailments. His wife testified also that he had suffered a great deal from indigestion.

Employee had worked from Monday until Friday morning as usual following a three-week vacation, which ended the weekend prior to his death. On the morning of his death, Employee arose at 6 A.M., ate a normal breakfast, left home about 6:45 A.M., and drove to Tinsley. Emmett Lee King, who was working that week as storekeeper, rode with him. Employee appeared to be normal. When he got to his place of employment, he went into the production office for a few minutes while King went to the warehouse office and turned on the air conditioner. After about ten minutes Employee walked approximately twenty steps from the production office to the warehouse office, and sometime later began his duties of assisting King in checking the ledger against the monthly reports. One read and the other checked. This...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • Leake County Coop. (A.A.L.) v. Barrett's Dependents, No. 45356
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 26 Mayo 1969
    ...the most difficult to reconcile with the other decisions of this Court in this area is Union Producing Company v. Dependents of Simpson, 251 Miss. 183, 168 So.2d 808 (1964), wherein this Court reversed the decisions of the attorney referee, commission and circuit court awarding compensation......
  • Washington v. Greenville Mfg. and Mach. Works, No. 45269
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 26 Mayo 1969
    ...(236 Miss. at 731, 732, 112 So.2d at 360, 361). Appellee cites and relies upon the case of Union Producing Co. v. Dependents of Simpson, 251 Miss. 183, 168 So.2d 808 (1964), but the rule announced in Simpson is not applicable here because we do not know what Washington was doing at the time......
  • Johnston v. Hattiesburg Clinic, P.A., No. 53445
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 17 Noviembre 1982
    ...(236 Miss. at 731, 732, 112 So.2d at 360, 361). Appellee cites and relies upon the case of Union Producing Co. v. Dependents of Simpson, 251 Miss. 183, 168 So.2d 808 (1964), but the rule announced in Simpson is not applicable here because we do not know what Washington was doing at the time......
  • Mississippi Ass'n of Ins. Agents, Inc. v. Seay's Dependents, No. 45056
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 6 Enero 1969
    ...the claim was compensable. The employer, appellant, relies strongly upon the opinion in Union Producing Company v. Dependents of Simpson, 251 Miss. 183, 168 So.2d 808 (1964), to sustain its argument under the 'ordinary wear and tear of life' doctrine. In the Union Producing Company case the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Leake County Coop. (A.A.L.) v. Barrett's Dependents, 45356
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 26 Mayo 1969
    ...the most difficult to reconcile with the other decisions of this Court in this area is Union Producing Company v. Dependents of Simpson, 251 Miss. 183, 168 So.2d 808 (1964), wherein this Court reversed the decisions of the attorney referee, commission and circuit court awarding compensation......
  • Washington v. Greenville Mfg. and Mach. Works, 45269
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 26 Mayo 1969
    ...(236 Miss. at 731, 732, 112 So.2d at 360, 361). Appellee cites and relies upon the case of Union Producing Co. v. Dependents of Simpson, 251 Miss. 183, 168 So.2d 808 (1964), but the rule announced in Simpson is not applicable here because we do not know what Washington was doing at the time......
  • Johnston v. Hattiesburg Clinic, P.A., 53445
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 17 Noviembre 1982
    ...(236 Miss. at 731, 732, 112 So.2d at 360, 361). Appellee cites and relies upon the case of Union Producing Co. v. Dependents of Simpson, 251 Miss. 183, 168 So.2d 808 (1964), but the rule announced in Simpson is not applicable here because we do not know what Washington was doing at the time......
  • Mississippi Ass'n of Ins. Agents, Inc. v. Seay's Dependents, 45056
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 6 Enero 1969
    ...the claim was compensable. The employer, appellant, relies strongly upon the opinion in Union Producing Company v. Dependents of Simpson, 251 Miss. 183, 168 So.2d 808 (1964), to sustain its argument under the 'ordinary wear and tear of life' doctrine. In the Union Producing Company case the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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