Title: Charles N. Clark Assoc. v. Dep. of Robinson

State: mississippi

Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court

Document:

357 So. 2d 924 (1978) CHARLES N. CLARK ASSOCIATES, LIMITED and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Company v. DEPENDENTS OF CALVIN J. ROBINSON, Deceased. No. 50222. Supreme Court of Mississippi. April 12, 1978. *925 Harold W. Melvin, Laurel, for appellants. Odom & Parrish, J. Ronald Parrish, Laurel, for appellee. Before SMITH, LEE and COFER, JJ. LEE, Justice, for the Court: The administrative judge entered an order denying compensation benefits to the widow and children of Calvin J. Robinson on a finding that the evidence was insufficient to establish causal connection between the deceased's employment and his death in any reasonable, substantial degree by his employment, and that the primary diagnosis by Dr. Frank Jones of deceased's condition on October 8, 1973, was for an upper respiratory infection. The Workmen's Compensation Commission affirmed that order by a two-to-one decision, and, upon appeal to the Circuit Court of Jones County, the presiding judge reversed the order of the full Commission and entered an order granting compensation benefits to said widow and children. The employer-carrier have appealed here and assign the following error committed by the circuit court: Calvin J. Robinson was employed as a draftsman for Charles N. Clark Associates, Limited, in Laurel, Mississippi, from 1957 until October 8, 1973. In 1971, he began having severe problems with his back and his condition was diagnosed myofibrositis. Dr. Frank Jones, Hattiesburg, and Dr. Charles Hollingshead, Laurel, treated Mr. Robinson and prescribed strong sedatives and an exercise program for him. His condition worsened as time elapsed, he was admitted to the hospital for approximately one week and also was treated in New Orleans. On October 8, 1973, Robinson was suffering a great deal of pain in his upper back, and he went to Hattiesburg to see Dr. Jones. After examination and treatment by Dr. Jones and while returning to Laurel, he was involved in a one-car accident (striking a bridge abutment) which resulted in his death. Appellants contend that there was substantial evidence before the Commission to the effect that Robinson's condition was not work-related and that his visit to Dr. Jones on October 8, 1973, was not work-related and was a personal visit. On the other hand, appellees argue that the evidence is overwhelming that his condition was work-related and that his trip to Dr. Jones was at the authorization and suggestion of his employer and was work-connected. Was Robinson's back condition work-related? *926 Myofibrositis is an illness or condition affecting the muscles of the back, thorax and shoulders, and is extremely painful, so much so that medication offers little relief. Three witnesses, Mrs. Catherine Robinson (widow), Dr. Frank E. Jones, Jr., and Charles Clark (adverse witness), were called by the appellees to testify in the case. One witness, Dr. Charles Hollingshead, was called by appellants. It is undisputed that Robinson's work was not the original cause of his myofibrositis. Mrs. Robinson testified that at the end of a day's work deceased was in much greater pain than at the beginning of the day, and that many times he could not sleep at night on account thereof. She stated that on the morning of October 8, 1973, deceased had such pain in his back that he went to Hattiesburg to see Dr. Jones for relief. Charles Clark was an officer and principal stockholder of the appellant company. He testified that the deceased was a draftsman (Clark was also a draftsman) and that the work was arduous, involving stooping and pulling of the muscles and particularly affecting the back, shoulder and arm muscles. Dr. Jones testified as follows: Dr. Hollingshead testified on cross-examination as follows: The evidence is undisputed that Robinson's condition was aggravated by his work as a draftsman and there is no evidence, substantial or otherwise, to the contrary. Was Robinson's visit to Dr. Jones on October 8, 1973, in connection with a work-related condition and was the visit authorized and suggested by his employer? Mr. Clark testified to the following: *928 The testimony of Dr. Jones set forth hereinabove reflects that he examined and saw Robinson for the pain in his back and shoulders and that the respiratory infection caused coughing, which increased such pain. Thus, the undisputed testimony is that Robinson went to see Dr. Jones at the authorization and suggestion of his superior, Mr. Clark, and that the examination covered the work-related condition of his back and shoulders. There is no substantial evidence to the contrary. The law is established in this state that, if an order of the Workmen's Compensation Commission is supported by substantial evidence, then such order must be affirmed. The appellate court is not the judge of the weight and worth of the evidence. Knox Glass, Inc. v. Evans, 197 So. 2d 784 (Miss. 1967); Perkinson v. Laurel Hot Mix, Inc., 252 Miss. 879, 174 So. 2d 391 (1965); Freeman v. Mississippi Power & Light Co., 230 Miss. 396, 92 So. 2d 658 (1957). It is also well established that the workmen's compensation law should be broadly and liberally construed. L. & A. Construction Co. v. McCharen, 198 So. 2d 240 (Miss. 1967). The crucial question here, which has not been decided by this Court, is whether or not under the facts set forth hereinabove, the death of Robinson is compensable. Larson's Workmen's Compensation Law, Vol. 1, § 13.13, at 3-379 3-383 (1972) states the following rule: The California case of Laines v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board, 122 Cal. Rptr. 139, 48 Cal. App. 3d 872, 874 (1975), held that an injury sustained while an employee *929 was en route to receive current medical treatment for an earlier industrial injury arose out of and in the course of his employment and was proximately caused by the earlier injury, although the earlier injury, in itself, did not contribute to the second injury and the journey did not commence at the place of employment, and was compensable. In Taylor v. Centex Construction Co., 191 Kan. 130, 379 P.2d 217 (1963), the Supreme Court of Kansas held that injuries sustained by an employee were compensable where the employee received an eye injury at work and was told by his employer to go to the doctor. During the trip, the employee was involved in an automobile accident, and the Court held the following: See also Whitington v. Industrial Commission, 10 Ariz. App. 461, 459 P.2d 740 (1969); and Immer and Company v. Brosnahan, 207 Va. 720, 152 S.E.2d 254 (1967). Robinson had not filed a claim for benefits prior to October 8, 1973[1] but he suffered from a condition, which, although not caused by his work, was aggravated by same and was compensable. Universal Manufacturing Co. v. Barlow, 260 So. 2d 827 (Miss. 1972). On October 8, 1973, he visited Dr. Jones primarily for treatment of that condition upon authorization and at the suggestion of his employer and accidentally lost his life in so doing. We hold that the principle expressed in Taylor v. Centex Construction Co., supra, and Laines v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board, supra, is a reasonable and sound rule and that it should be applied here. Therefore, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ., and SUGG, WALKER, BROOM, BOWLING and COFER, JJ., concur. [1] evidence indicated that Robinson could not support his family on compensation benefits.