Wall v. C. Y. Thomason Co.
| Decision Date | 02 December 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 17356,17356 |
| Citation | 232 S.C. 153,101 S.E.2d 286 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | H. Forrest WALL, Employee, Respondent, v. C. Y. THOMASON COMPANY, Employer, and Insurer Service Corporation, Adjuster, Appellants. |
Haynsworth, Perry, Bryant, Marion & Johnstone, Greenville, for appellants.
Buzhardt & Buzhardt, McCormick, for respondent.
In a proceeding instituted on August 1, 1955, under the South Carolina Workmen's Compensation Act to recover compensation for temporary total disability and disfigurement resulting from an injury arising out of and in the course of respondent's employment on February 3, 1954, a hearing was held before a single commissioner on October 13, 1955. On August 7, 1956, an award was filed denying the claim for disability because no diminution of wages had been suffered, but ordering the employer, C. Y. Thomason Company, and its insurance carrier, to pay to the claimant seven hundred fifty dollars for serious bodily disfigurement. No appeal was taken from that award.
After the time for appeal had expired, and after respondent had made demand for payment of the award, the employer informed its counsel for the first time that it had, on December 27, 1954, made an advance of four hundred fifty dollars to respondent 'on the compensation due' him, and accordingly offered to pay respondent the amount of the award less the amount of the advance so claimed to have been made. Respondent, denying that such advance had been made, refused to agree to its deduction, and moved before the Honorable T. B. Greneker, Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, for judgment in the amount of the award, $750, plus doctors' bills amounting to $25. As to the item of $25 there is no controversy. The motion was heard by Judge Greneker on December 8, 1956, together with a motion by appellants for a reference to determine the question presented by the employer's claim of a deductible advance. On January 26, 1957, Judge Greneker, holding that the claim of advancement had been resented too late for consideration, refused appellants' motion and ordered judgment for the respondent in the amount of $775. Appeal is from that order.
Procedure for review by the full Commission of the award of the hearing commissioner is prescribed by Section 72-355 of the 1952 Code, and for appeal to the court of common pleas from the award of the full Commission by Section 72-356. If no application is made for review of the hearing commissioner's award, that award becomes effective as the award of the Commission. McDonald v. Palmetto Theaters, 196 S.C. 38, 11 S.E.2d 444.
Section 72-357 provides that upon the filing in the court of common pleas of a certified copy of an award unappealed from the court 'shall render judgment in accordance therewith'. The language of the section is mandatory; and the rendition of judgment in such case is ministerial rather than judicial, for the award is subject to review only by the appeal procedure to which we have referred.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weatherly v. Great Coastal Express Co., Inc.
...Co., 170 W.Va. 572, 295 S.E.2d 659, 664-65 (1981); Taylor v. Hatzel & Buehler, 258 A.2d 905, 908 (Del.1969); Wall v. C.Y. Thomason Co., 232 S.C. 153, 101 S.E.2d 286, 288 (1957). 6. There are limits to the broad authority conferred upon the Commission by LE § 9-736(b). See, e.g., Ratcliffe v......
-
Drake v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.
...the basis of exceptions on appeal to the Circuit Court. Appellant relies upon the rule announced in such cases as Wall v. C. Y. Thomason Company, 232 S.C. 153, 101 S.E.2d 286 to the effect that 'appeal to the court of common pleas from the Commission's award is governed by the same principl......
-
World Color Press v. Industrial Com'n of Illinois
...and their application for a credit on appeal under the Kentucky law required the introduction of new evidence. In Wall v. C.Y. Thomason Co. (1953), 232 S.C. 153, 101 S.E.2d 286, the employer sought to assert its right to a credit after the award of compensation benefits became final for fai......
-
Spivey ex rel. Spivey v. Car. Crawler
...The statute does not provide a settlement agreement constitutes a judgment for purposes of review. See Wall v. C.Y. Thomason Co., 232 S.C. 153, 156, 101 S.E.2d 286, 288 (1957) (holding "the language [Section 72-357 (now § 42-17-70)] is mandatory; and the rendition of judgment in such case i......