Vick v. Springs Cotton Mills

• Decision Date: 26 November 1946
• Docket Number: 15890.
• Citation: 40 S.E.2d 409,209 S.C. 372
• Parties: VICK v. SPRINGS COTTON MILLS et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

40 S.E.2d 409

209 S.C. 372

VICK v. SPRINGS COTTON MILLS et al.

No. 15890.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

November 26, 1946

Osborne, Butler & Moore, of Spartanburg, for appellants.

Gregory & Gregory, of Lancaster, for respondent.

BAKER Chief Justice.

In this case, the main issue to be decided is whether the respondent suffered serious facial disfigurement; but preliminary to a discussion of same, there arises a highly technical issue which we will discuss first.

It is admitted that the respondent sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the appellant, Springs Cotton Mills, and that he lost no wages on account of any loss of time from his employment. However, it became necessary for the respondent to file a claim for alleged serious facial disfigurement, and pursuant thereto, a hearing was held before the South Carolina Industrial Commission, W. L. DePass, Jr., as Hearing Commissioner. At that hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of appellants.

In the report of the hearing it appears that the 'Subject of Hearing' was 'To determine the amount of disfigurement and any other questions which may arise under the terms of the Law.'

The only testimony reported is that of the respondent, which is as follows:

'* * * that on November 14, 1944, a shuttle weighing about a half-pound, three inches long and two and one-half inches wide, being of hard wood, with a steel point, hit him in the mouth when it flew out of another loom; that three teeth were knocked out and the fourth damaged and had to be removed; that he had a cut lip and part of the bone of the upper jaw was removed to such an extent that he cannot have an upper plate fitted; that there are four teeth in the bridge; this his lip draws up and is sunken in; that two of his teeth were fitted with a gold plate.'

The Hearing Commissioner's opinion and award reads as below set forth:

'At the Hearing herein the Defendants admitted employment coverage and injury. The only question before the Commission is one of disfigurement.

'The Claimant appeared before this Commissioner and his disfigurement was observed. On November 14, 1944, the Claimant was injured when a shuttle weighing about one-half pound and being thirteen inches long and two-and one- half inches wide hit in his mouth; three teeth were knocked out and one damaged so that it had to be removed. Four teeth have been made in a bridge and when he loses the two teeth the bridge is attached to he will not be able to chew at all in the front of his mouth as there is not enough bone left to fit an upper plate, part of the bone of the upper jaw having been removed. As a result of the loss of the bone the upper lip draws upward and there is a depression or sink. The two teeth, upon which is hung the upper bridge containing four false teeth, are gold covered.

'I find that under Section 31(t) and the Amendment to this Section effective May 20, 1941, the Claimant should be paid the sum of Eighteen Hundred ($1,800.00) Dollars for serious and permanent injury to his upper teeth and jawbone.

'Therefore the following:

'Award

'It is ordered, that the Defendants pay to Claimant the sum of Eighteen Hundred ($1,800.00) Dollars for serious and permanent injury to his upper teeth and jawbone.'

Appellants applied for and served notice and grounds for review before the Full Commission, said grounds being:

'1. That it was error to award $1,800.00 for disfigurement or alleged injury to the Claimant; the error being that the Award is excessive, arbitrary, capricious and greater than is reasonable and proper.

'2. That the Award is erroneous in that it includes and is based upon speculation, future possibilities and contingencies which are not proper considerations for an Award under the Act.

'3. That it was error to award compensation for injury to or loss of teeth and parts of the jawbone; the error being that the Act makes no provision for injury to or loss of such members of the face or head.

'4. That it was error to include in the award compensation for alleged injury or loss, as distinguished from disfigurement: the error being that the Act provides only for serious disfigurement, and not for loss or injury not constituting serious disfigurement.

'5. That it was error to make any award in favor of Claimant; the error being that the Claimant sustains no condition constituting serious facial or head disfigurement for which compensation may be awarded under the Act.

'6. That it was error...