Wright v. Graniteville Co. Vaucluse Division, No. 20156

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtLEWIS
Citation266 S.C. 88,221 S.E.2d 777
PartiesVirginia WRIGHT, et al., Respondents, v. GRANITEVILLE COMPANY, VAUCLUSE DIVISION, and American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, Appellants.
Decision Date26 January 1976
Docket NumberNo. 20156

Page 777

221 S.E.2d 777
266 S.C. 88
Virginia WRIGHT, et al., Respondents,
v.
GRANITEVILLE COMPANY, VAUCLUSE DIVISION, and American Mutual
Liability Insurance Company, Appellants.
No. 20156.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Jan. 26, 1976.

[266 S.C. 89] Ernest J. Nauful, Jr., of Callison, Tighe, Nauful & Rush, Columbia, for appellants.

[266 S.C. 90] Franklin D. Beattie, Jr., Aiken, for respondents.

LEWIS, Chief Justice:

The deceased, Shade Wright, Jr., forty-two (42) years of age and an employee of appellant, Graniteville Company, for [266 S.C. 91] twenty-seven (27) years, allegedly sustained an injury while about his work on March 29, 1972, aggravating the preexisting disease of diabetes, which resulted in his death about ten (10) days later, on April 7, 1972. An award by the Industrial Commission to respondents (dependents of deceased) for death benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act was affirmed by the lower court, and the employer and carrier have appealed. We affirm.

Page 778

While the seventeen (17) exceptions on appeal are treated in the briefs as raising six (6) questions, all are embraced within the basic issue of whether there was any competent evidence to sustain the findings of the Industrial Commission that the death of the employee resulted from an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

Appellant's position that the evidence fails to sustain the award is based to a large extent upon the asserted incompetency of testimony of one of the medical experts, and whether certain testimony of the widow was inadmissible as violative of the 'Dead Man's Statute,' Section 26--402, 1962 Code of Laws.

Appellants' objection to the testimony of one of the medical witnesses concerns the testimony of Dr. Lattimore who testified for respondents as a medical expert on the issue of causation. He had never treated the employee but, in response to a hypothetical question, testified that in his opinion the injury sustained by the employee most probably aggravated a preexisting disease, resulting in death. The hypothetical question was permitted over appellants' objection that it was based upon material facts which were never proven. The objection was properly overruled.

A full statement of the long hypothetical question is unnecessary. Both respondents and appellants propounded hypothetical questions to their respective medical experts based, in general, upon testimony that the deceased, 42 years of age and in good health, sustained an [266 S.C. 92] injury to his shoulder, diagnosed as a fracture; that there was an immediate onset of pain, becoming disabling on the following day; and that thereafter he took prescribed medication, became nauseated, went into diabetic shock or diabetic acidosis and died. Although some of the details assumed in the hypothetical question propounded by respondents to Dr. Lattimore may not have been specifically proven, the material facts assumed were within the range of the foregoing evidence and there was no error in permitting the expert to give his opinion in response thereto. As stated in Chapman v. Foremost Dairies, Inc., 249...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Clark v. Ross, No. 0406
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • November 21, 1984
    ...in allowing Dr. Bell to give his opinion in response Page 98 to the hypothetical question. Wright v. Graniteville Co., Vaucluse Division, 266 S.C. 88, 221 S.E.2d 777 284 S.C. 553] C. Dr. Collings and Dr. Ross both contend that the trial judge improperly allowed Dr. Sims, in response to a hy......
  • Geathers v. 3V, Inc., No. 26254.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 29, 2007
    ...Dep't, 236 S.C. 540, 115 S.E.2d 183 (1960); Arnold v. Benjamin Booth Co., 257 S.C. 337, 185 S.E.2d 830 (1971); Wright v. Graniteville Co., 266 S.C. 88, 221 S.E.2d 777...
  • Hanahan v. Simpson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 23, 1987
    ...other testimony which was properly admitted. McBeth v. Bishop, 278 S.C. 443, 298 S.E.2d 441 [326 S.C. 155] (1982); Wright v. Graniteville, 266 S.C. 88, 221 S.E.2d 777 (1976)(even if testimony objectionable under Dead Man's Statute, no reversible error where testimony is cumulative to other ......
  • Ballew v. Liberty Life Ins. Co., No. 20622
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 27, 1978
    ...was no error in permitting the expert to give his opinion in response to the question. Wright v. Graniteville Co., Vancluse Division, 266 S.C. 88, 221 S.E.2d 777 (1976); Chapman v. Foremost Dairies, Inc., 249 S.C. 438, 154 S.E.2d 845 Appellant also contends Dr. Cancellaro's opinion testimon......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Clark v. Ross, No. 0406
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • November 21, 1984
    ...in allowing Dr. Bell to give his opinion in response Page 98 to the hypothetical question. Wright v. Graniteville Co., Vaucluse Division, 266 S.C. 88, 221 S.E.2d 777 284 S.C. 553] C. Dr. Collings and Dr. Ross both contend that the trial judge improperly allowed Dr. Sims, in response to a hy......
  • Geathers v. 3V, Inc., No. 26254.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 29, 2007
    ...Dep't, 236 S.C. 540, 115 S.E.2d 183 (1960); Arnold v. Benjamin Booth Co., 257 S.C. 337, 185 S.E.2d 830 (1971); Wright v. Graniteville Co., 266 S.C. 88, 221 S.E.2d 777...
  • Hanahan v. Simpson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 23, 1987
    ...other testimony which was properly admitted. McBeth v. Bishop, 278 S.C. 443, 298 S.E.2d 441 [326 S.C. 155] (1982); Wright v. Graniteville, 266 S.C. 88, 221 S.E.2d 777 (1976)(even if testimony objectionable under Dead Man's Statute, no reversible error where testimony is cumulative to other ......
  • Ballew v. Liberty Life Ins. Co., No. 20622
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 27, 1978
    ...was no error in permitting the expert to give his opinion in response to the question. Wright v. Graniteville Co., Vancluse Division, 266 S.C. 88, 221 S.E.2d 777 (1976); Chapman v. Foremost Dairies, Inc., 249 S.C. 438, 154 S.E.2d 845 Appellant also contends Dr. Cancellaro's opinion testimon......
  • 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