From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barnes v. Buckeye Molding Co.

Supreme Court of Mississippi
Oct 28, 1963
247 Miss. 614 (Miss. 1963)

Opinion

No. 42763.

October 28, 1963.

1. Workmen's compensation — back injury — finding of Commission against claimant supported by substantial evidence.

Determination by Commission that claimant did not sustain a back injury in the course of her employment was supported by substantial evidence and was not against the great weight of the evidence.

Headnote as approved by Lee, P.J.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Washington County; ARTHUR B. CLARK, Judge.

Fountain D. Dawson, Greenville; Crisler, Crisler Bowling, Jackson, for appellant.

I. The majority of the Commission did not have substantial evidence in this record to reverse the attorney-referee and hold that the appellant was injured solely by "chasing her child". Russell v. Sohio Southern Pipe Lines, Inc., 236 Miss. 722, 112 So.2d 357; Scott v. Brookhaven Well Service, 246 Miss. 456, 150 So.2d 508.

Ralph D. Davison, Wynn, Hafter, Lake Tindall, Greenville, for appellees.

I. The finding of the Commission is supported by substantial evidence. Connell v. Armstrong Tire Rubber Co., 242 Miss. 280, 134 So.2d 435.


Mrs. Doyce Faye Barnes filed her claim against Buckeye Molding Company and its insurer to collect compensation for a back injury, received about May 28, 1959, when allegedly she was lifting a box of tabs. The attorney-referee, after hearing all of the evidence, awarded compensation. However, after hearing by the Commission, by majority vote, the award of the attorney-referee was reversed and the same was disallowed. The circuit court, on appeal, affirmed the action of the Commission.

The claimant testified that she received the injury in the manner just stated. No one of her fellow-employees gave verification to the way and manner in which her injury was sustained. Her husband testified that she made complaint when she arrived at home that night. In the medical history, given to several attending doctors, May 28th was given as the time of the injury. On the hearing, she testified that it occurred on May 29th.

The defendant offered evidence to show that claimant began her employment May 26th; that she worked eight hours each day thereafter, on May 27th, 28th and 29th; and that on May 30th, she worked only about a half hour and went home because she was not feeling well. Three fellow-employees testified that Mrs. Barnes made no complaint to them about hurting her back while performing her duties. On the contrary, they said that she told them that she hurt her back while chasing her little boy. There was evidence that, in certain statements, she also said that she hurt her back chasing her son.

(Hn 1) The sole inquiry was directed to the determination of the time and the manner in which she received her injury. The evidence on this material issue was in conflict. The Commission resolved the conflict against the claimant. This Court, on a review, is not able to say that the action of the Commission has no substantial evidence upon which it can be based, or that it is against the great weight of the evidence.

Consequently, the judgment of the circuit court will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Kyle, McElroy, Rodgers and Jones, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Barnes v. Buckeye Molding Co.

Supreme Court of Mississippi
Oct 28, 1963
247 Miss. 614 (Miss. 1963)
Case details for

Barnes v. Buckeye Molding Co.

Case Details

Full title:BARNES v. BUCKEYE MOLDING COMPANY, et al

Court:Supreme Court of Mississippi

Date published: Oct 28, 1963

Citations

247 Miss. 614 (Miss. 1963)
157 So. 2d 63

Citing Cases

Cofer v. Garan, Inc.

There is no doubt that appellant sustained a back injury at some time and place, but the primary question is…

Short v. Wilson Meat House, LLC

Of course, this did not preclude the Commission from finding in his favor. See, e.g., Alexander Smith, Inc.…