Williams v. Boyle Const. Co., 18891

Decision Date17 March 1969
Docket NumberNo. 18891,18891
Citation166 S.E.2d 550,252 S.C. 387
PartiesJohn M. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. BOYLE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and Blythe Brothers Company, and the Travelers Insurance Company, Respondents.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

Jack H. Page, Conway, for appellant.

Suggs & McCutcheon, Conway, for respondents.

LEWIS, Justice.

This is a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act for additional medical expenses. The claimant-employee sustained a compensable injury which resulted in his becoming a paraplegic. His condition is incurable and the Industrial Commission has found that he is totally and permanently disabled within the meaning of the act. The employer and carrier concede liability for total and permanent disability benefits and for medical expenses incurred during the first ten weeks from the date of the injury, the latter provided in Section 72--305 of the 1962 Code of Laws, but deny liability for any medical expenses beyond that date. This appeal is from an order of the lower court reversing an award by the Commission directing that such additional medical treatment be provided for the employee.

The applicable provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, requiring that medical expenses be furnished an injured employee who sustains a compensable injury, are set forth in Section 72--305, supra, the pertinent portions of which are as follows:

'Medical, surgical, hospital and other treatment, including medical and surgical supplies as may reasonably be required, for a period not exceeding ten weeks from the date of an injury to effect a cure or give relief and for such additional time as in the judgment of the Commission will tend to lessen the period of disability and, in addition thereto, such original artifical members as may be reasonably necessary at the end of the healing period shall be provided by the employer. In case of a controversy arising between employer and employee, the Commission may order such further medical, surgical, hospital or other treatment as may in the discretion of the Commission be necessary.'

These statutory provisions impose liability on an employer to pay such medical expenses of an injured employee for a period of ten weeks from the date of injury as may be reasonably required to effect a cure or give relief. However, there is no liability to furnish medical treatment for an additional time unless it 'will tend to lessen the period of disability.' The term Disability, as used in the act, 'means incapacity because of injury to earn the wages which the employee was receiving at the time of injury in the same or any other employment,' Sections 72--2 and 72--10 of the 1962 Code of Laws. Millwood v. Firestone Cotton Mills, 215 N.C. 519, 2 S.E.2d 560.

While the position is taken by the claimant that the second sentence of the above quotation from Section 72--305 authorizes the Commission to order such additional medical treatment, beyond the first ten weeks, as it may find Necessary, we think that the two quoted sentences must be construed together and, when so considered, the Commission can order the payment of medical expenses incurred beyond the first ten weeks after the injury only where there is evidence to sustain the conclusion that such additional medical treatment 'will tend to lessen the period of disability.' Millwood v. Firestone Cotton Mills, supra; Trudeau v. U.S. Rubber Co., 92 R.I. 324, 168 A.2d 459.

It is to be noted that the statute does not require that the additional medical treatment Will lessen the period of disability, but only requires that it will Tend to do so. The word 'tend' is defined in Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, page 1637, as follows: 'To have a leaning; serve, contribute, or conduce in some degree or way, or have a more or less direct...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Hall v. United Rentals, Inc.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 23 Octubre 2006
    ...would tend to lessen the period of disability. Dykes v. Daniel Const. Co., 262 S.C. 98, 202 S.E.2d 646 (1974); Williams v. Boyle Const. Co., 252 S.C. 387, 166 S.E.2d 550 (1969); Dodge v. Bruccoli, Clark, Layman, Inc., 334 S.C. 574, 514 S.E.2d 593 (Ct.App.1999). Generally, even though a clai......
  • Chambers v. Smith's Drywall, 24505
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 5 Diciembre 1996
    ...318 S.C. 502, 458 S.E.2d 542 (1995); S.C.Code Ann. §§ 42-1-540 & 42-9-10 to -440 (1985 & Supp.1995); Argument III: Williams v. Boyle Constr. Co., 252 S.C. 387, 166 S.E.2d 550 (1969); Brown v. Owen Steel Co., 316 S.C. 278, 450 S.E.2d 57 (Ct.App.1994); S.C.Code Ann. § 42-15-60 (1985); 25A S.C......
  • Dodge v. Bruccoli, Clark, Layman, Inc.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 16 Febrero 1999
    ...." Sanders v. Litchfield Country Club, 297 S.C. 339, 344, 377 S.E.2d 111, 114 (Ct.App.1989); see Williams v. Boyle Constr. Co., 252 S.C. 387, 390, 166 S.E.2d 550, 551 (1969) (There is no liability on an employer to furnish medical treatment for an additional time beyond the ten week period ......
  • Dykes v. Daniel Const. Co., 19772
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 12 Febrero 1974
    ...hospital or other treatment as may in the discretion of the Commission be necessary.' We pointed out in Williams v. Boyle Construction Co., 252 S.C. 387, 166 S.E.2d 550, that, under the foregoing statute, there is no liability on the part of an employer to furnish medical treatment to an in......
  • 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