Summary
In Moon v. Erwin Mills, Inc., 244 Miss. 573, 578, 145 So.2d 465, 466 (1962), we pointed out that the Commission is the trier of facts and it is the Commission's findings of fact which will not be disturbed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence.
Summary of this case from Bruton v. Workmen's Comp. CommOpinion
No. 42376.
October 8, 1962.
1. Workmen's compensation — myocardial infarction — as not arising out of or in course of employment.
Evidence was insufficient to establish that death of office manager, in his bed at home from myocardial infarction, arose out of or in course of employment. Sec. 6998-01 et seq., Code 1942
2. Workmen's compensation — Commission, rather than attorney-referee, is trier of fact.
3. Workmen's compensation — Commission's finding — when and when not disturbed on appeal.
Commission's findings will not be disturbed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence.
Headnotes as approved by McGehee, C.J.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Clarke County; WILLIAM J. GUNN, J.
Morse Morse, Poplarville, for appellant.
I. The Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Commission has the sole jurisdiction to determine issues of fact.
II. The Commission erred as a matter of law in holding that even though the attorney-referee found as a matter of fact that the death of J.E. Moon arose out of and in the course of his employment, that compensation should be denied as a matter of law since "there is a variance from the multitude of other heart cases that have been before the Commission" and "there was no allegation that the deceased had an extremely heavy work load" or "that he was working under pressure" or "that there was any tension or extreme physical or arduous duties attached to his employment" and since "the claimant had a pre-existing condition" and since his death occurred "when he was not at his employment". Avery Body Co. v. Hall, 223 Miss. 863, 79 So.2d 452; Central Electric Power Assn. v. Hicks, 236 Miss. 378, 110 So.2d 351; Christopher v. City Grill, 218 Miss. 638, 67 So.2d 694; Cowart v. Pearl River Tung Co., 218 Miss. 472, 67 So.2d 356; Dillon v. Gasoline Plant Construction Co., 220 Miss. 10, 75 So.2d 80; East v. Pigford Bros. Construction Co., 219 Miss. 121, 68 So.2d 294; Federated Mutual Implement Hardware Ins. Co. v. Spencer, 219 Miss. 68, 67 So.2d 878; Fischer v. Gloster Lumber Builders Supply Co. (Miss.), 57 So.2d 871; Goodnite v. Farm Equipment Co., 234 Miss. 342, 103 So.2d 391; Hardin's Bakeries, Inc. v. Ranager, 217 Miss. 463, 64 So.2d 705; Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp. v. Byrd, 215 Miss. 234, 60 So.2d 645; Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp. v. Howell, 221 Miss. 824, 74 So.2d 863; LaDew v. LaBorde, 216 Miss. 598, 63 So.2d 56; L.B. Priester Son, Inc. v. Bynum's Dependents, 244 Miss. 185, 141 So.2d 246, 142 So.2d 30; Majure v. William H. Alsup Associates, 216 Miss. 607, 63 So.2d 113; Merchants Fertilizer Phosphate Co. v. Standard Cotton Gin, 199 Miss. 206, 23 So.2d 906; Mississippi Federated Cooperatives v. Jefferson, 224 Miss. 150, 79 So.2d 723; Mississippi Products Inc. v. Gordy, 224 Miss. 690, 80 So.2d 793; Pearl River Tung Co. v. John's Estate, 225 Miss. 303, 83 So.2d 95; Pearson v. Dixie Electric Power Assn., 219 Miss. 884, 70 So.2d 6; Pennington v. Smith's Dependents, 232 Miss. 775, 100 So.2d 569; Pigford Bros. Construction Co. v. Evans, 225 Miss. 411, 83 So.2d 622; Poole v. Learned Son, 234 Miss. 362, 103 So.2d 396; Port Gibson Veneer Box Co. v. Brown, 226 Miss. 127, 83 So.2d 757; Prentiss Truck Tractor Co. v. Spencer, 228 Miss. 66, 87 So.2d 272; Railway Express Agency v. Hollingsworth, 221 Miss. 688, 74 So.2d 754; Roling v. Hatten Davis Lumber Co., 226 Miss. 732, 85 So.2d 486; Russell v. Sohio Southern Pipe Lines, Inc., 236 Miss. 722, 112 So.2d 357; Schilling v. Mississippi State Forestry Comm., 226 Miss. 858, 85 So.2d 562; Shannon v. City of Hazlehurst, 237 Miss. 828, 116 So.2d 546; Shivers v. Biloxi-Gulfport Daily Herald, 236 Miss. 303, 110 So.2d 359; Smith v. St. Catherine Gravel Co., 220 Miss. 462, 71 So.2d 221; Southern Engineering Electric Co. v. Chester, 236 Miss. 136, 83 So.2d 811; Tate v. Dr. Pepper Bottling Co., 220 Miss. 311, 70 So.2d 602; Thornbrough Well Servicing Co. v. Brown, 221 Miss. 824, 78 So.2d 159; Webster Construction Co. v. Bates, 227 Miss. 207, 85 So.2d 795; Williams Bros. Co. v. McIntosh, 226 Miss. 533, 84 So.2d 692; Williams v. Vicksburg Wholesale Poultry Co., 233 Miss. 384, 102 So.2d 378; Winters Hardwood Dimension Co. v. Harris' Dependents, 236 Miss. 757, 112 So.2d 227; 42 Am. Jur., Public Administrative Law, Sec. 206; Dunn, Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Law, Sec. 166 p. 83; Larson's Workmen's Compensation Law, pp. 544-545, 561.
III. Assuming arguendo that we are mistaken in the foregoing, the Commission, though the finder of fact, may not vacate a finding of the attorney-referee unless manifestly wrong as being against the overwhelming weight of evidence. Daniel v. Klein, 149 Miss. 135, 115 So. 193; Goodyear Yellow Pine Co. v. Anderson, 171 Miss. 530, 157 So. 700; Sadler v. Glenn, 190 Miss. 112, 199 So. 305; Tynes v. Imperial Naval Stores Co., 101 Miss. 802, 58 So. 650.
Riddell Dabbs, Quitman, for appellees.
I. Cited and discussed the following authorities. L.B. Priester Son, Inc. v. Bynum's Dependents, 244 Miss. 185, 141 So.2d 246, 142 So.2d 30; Malley v. Over The Top, Inc., 229 Miss. 347, 90 So.2d 678; Russell v. Sohio Southern Pipe Lines, Inc., 236 Miss. 722, 112 So.2d 357; Shannon v. City of Hazlehurst, 237 Miss. 828, 116 So.2d 546; Winters Hardwood Dimension Co. v. Harris' Dependents, 236 Miss. 757, 112 So.2d 227; Dunn, Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Law, Secs. 51, 166, 173, 173.1, 175 pp. 25, 83, 88, 91, 92, 140; 1 Larson's Workmen's Compensation Law, Sec. 38.83 pp. 565-566.
The deceased employee, John E. Moon, was a white man forty-three years of age at the time of death on December 31, 1958. Mr. Moon had been working since 1945 for the Erwin Mills, Inc. at Stonewall, Mississippi, as office manager, and his duties were supervision of the shipping and payroll departments. He was married to Mrs. Martha Jean Moon and they had three children, all of whom are claimants.
(Hn 1) The attorney-referee held that the employee suffered a heart attack, and that the same arose out of, and in the course of, his employment, but we do not think that there was any proof whatsoever that the death of the employee arose out of and in the course of his employment. He died in his bed at home, neither working for nor being on the premises of his employer.
The attorney-referee, in his written opinion, reviewed the testimony given before him in the case, and on appeal to the full Commission, it was found by the Commission that the findings of the attorney-referee were substantially correct. We think the Commission meant by this that the attorney-referee had substantially and fairly stated the testimony, but the Commission found that, nevertheless, that is to say, assuming that findings of the attorney-referee as to what the proof showed were correct, it was not a compensable claim under the law. The claim was not supported by any presumption under the Workmen's Compensation law that an employee found dead on the job is presumed to have died in the course of his employment and as a result thereof.
The Commission was warranted in believing from the medical testimony that the employee died of a myocardial infarction and was suffering through a period of time beginning approximately two or three days prior to his death from a pain in his chest, a feeling of smothering and pain in his arm, that he did not work on the day of his death but went to the place of business of the employer, had his blood pressure checked by a nurse at the plant, and shortly thereafter telephoned his wife to come and take him home, which was after twelve o'clock, and he died between one and two o'clock of the same day.
It is true that the Commission in its finding mentioned the fact that he had undergone no unusual exertion, etc. on the day of his death, but we do not feel justified in holding that this was the sole reason for the Commission's finding. We think that the Commission merely believes that if he had exerted himself unusually on that day, it would be justified in holding that his death arose out of, and in the course of, his employment.
It is true that Dr. William H. Rosenblatt, a heart specialist, testified that the employee died of rheumatic heart disease with aorta stenosis (a progressive disease), and that had the employee come to his office on the day in question with the symptoms testified to — the blood pressure, pain in his chest and left arm — that he would never have exercised him because he would have been afraid it would have killed him, and that he would have put him to bed. But there is no proof that he was required to, or did, exercise, or that he devoted any part of his time on that day to the duties of his employment.
We are unable to agree that the finding of the attorney-referee is analogous to the finding of a master in chancery, under the former decisions of this Court as to the weight to be given a finding of the Workmen's Compensation Commission. We think that the case here is not whether the finding of the attorney-referee is supported by substantial evidence but whether or not the finding of the Commission is supported by substantial evidence. The finding of an attorney-referee may be supported by the greater weight of the evidence, but the finding of the Commission may at the same time be supported by substantial evidence. (Hn 2) It is now well-settled that the Commission is the trier of fact and that (Hn 3) its finding will not be disturbed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence.
After a careful study of the briefs and record of all of the testimony given in this case, we are of the opinion that the Workmen's Compensation Commission was justified in holding that this was not a compensable claim. The judgment appealed from must therefore be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Kyle, Ethridge, Gillespie and Jones, JJ., concur.