Title: Alexander v. Campbell Construction Company
Citation: 288 So. 2d 4
Docket Number: 47299
State: Mississippi
Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court
Date: January 7, 1974

288 So. 2d 4 (1974) Mrs. Catherine ALEXANDER v. CAMPBELL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and Hartford Accident &amp; Indemnity Company. No. 47299. Supreme Court of Mississippi. January 7, 1974. Rehearing Denied January 28, 1974. Heidelberg, Woodliff &amp; Franks, Sam E. Scott, Jackson, for appellant. Daniel, Coker, Horton, Bell &amp; Dukes, Donald V. Burch, Jackson, for appellees. WALKER, Justice: This case involves a claim for death benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Mrs. Catherine Alexander, the wife and dependent of the deceased, George W. Alexander. The attorney-referee found *5 against claimant and an appeal was taken to the full Commission, a majority of which reversed the attorney-referee and allowed recovery but remanded the case for an apportionment by the attorney-referee. The employer-carrier appealed to the Circuit Court of Hinds County which reversed the order of the Commission and reinstated the order of the attorney-referee denying and dismissing the claim for workmen's compensation benefits. From that judgment the claimant appeals to this Court. Appellant, Mrs. (Catherine) George W. Alexander, dependent of the deceased Alexander filed a claim for death benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act, alleging in her B-5, 11 that her husband, George W. Alexander, age sixty-eight, was working at his desk in his office at Campbell Construction Company on August 29, 1968, and "died of heart attack." The deceased was an estimator for Campbell Construction Company where on the afternoon of August 29 at approximately four o'clock p.m., he was found unconscious slumped over his desk over a set of plans. At the time he was found, he was heard to make a gasping sound but did not respond when his name was called. It was shown that he had swallowed his tongue, was not breathing and had no pulse or heartbeat. Artificial resuscitation was attempted, but to no avail. Contrary to appellee's contention, we are of the opinion that the evidence is clear that Alexander was dead at the time he was found. This being true, a presumption arose that the deceased died as a result of an accidental injury in the course of his employment and further that there was a causal connection between such employment and the employee's death. This Court held in Washington v. Greenville Manufacturing &amp; Machine Works, 223 So. 2d 642, 645 (Miss. 1969), with Justice Inzer speaking for the Court that: Also see Dunn, Mississippi Workmen's Compensation section 269 (2d ed. 1967); Mississippi State University v. Dependents of Hattaway, 191 So. 2d 418 (Miss. 1966); Winters Hardwood Dimension Company v. Harris' Dependents, 236 Miss. 757, 112 So. 2d 227 (1959); Majure v. William H. Alsup &amp; Associates, 216 Miss. 607, 63 So. 2d 113 (1953). In Washington v. Greenville Manufacturing &amp; Machine Works, supra, this Court held that: The question presented here is whether or not the employer-carrier sufficiently rebutted the presumption of causal connection which arose out of the employee having been found dead at his desk where he usually worked. In an attempt to rebut the presumption which had arisen, the employer-carrier presented evidence to show that the death of Alexander was due to a heart attack. Additionally, in an attempt to show that there was no causal relation between decedent's death and his employment, the employer-carrier posed a hypothetical question to Dr. William H. Boggan and Dr. Earle Fyke, each of whom were asked if they had an opinion as to whether or not the employment or work activities as "related to you" in any way was a factor precipitating or aggravating the cause of Alexander's death. Substantially the same hypothetical *6 question was posed to each doctor and is as follows: There was an objection to the hypothetical by the claimant each time that it was posed on the grounds that (1) it assumed facts that were not in evidence, and (2) omitted material facts that were in evidence. The objection was overruled and the doctors answered the question in the negative. We agree with appellant's contention that the hypothetical was objectionable for the reason that it assumed facts that were not in evidence. First, it erroneously assumed that the bid which Alexander had been working on was completed the day before he died, when, at best, the testimony of J.H. Campbell, III, Secretary-Treasurer of Campbell Construction Company is to the effect that the bid had "primarily been completed on the 28th" but that the deceased had had a conference about the bid with Campbell on the morning of his death. Parenthetically, we would point out that there is no explanation as to what occurred at that meeting, nor is there any further evidence as to what activities the deceased engaged in during the remaining portion of that morning. It may be reasonably inferred that he continued to work in connection with the contract bid which was to be let during that day since he remained in the office during the lunch hour, a practice which was his custom only when he was under a deadline to complete a bid. Second, the hypothetical erroneously assumed that there was no job pressing at the time Alexander died. This assumption was based on the younger Campbell's testimony that his father, the elder Campbell's normal practice was not to leave town when there was a job pending within the next few days, and that he did in fact leave town on the day of the deceased's death. Such an assumption is not competent evidence and is akin to the type question that was condemned by this Court in the case of Washington v. Greenville Manufacturing &amp; Machine Works, supra, where it was stated: Third, the hypothetical asked the doctors to erroneously assume that the deceased's job was secure when there was no evidence to that effect. It is the contention of the appellee that such a reasonable conclusion can be drawn from the testimony of Mr. Campbell, who testified that he thought the deceased was a diligent, hard-working and competent employee. We do not agree that this testimony necessarily adds up to "job security" as that term would apply to this case. The important thing is not what Mr. Campbell thought, but whether or not the deceased felt secure in his job, and that question is left in serious doubt by the testimony of Mrs. Alexander as will be mentioned later. These erroneous assumptions of fact were very material to the primary question as to whether there was a causal connection between deceased's employment and his death, and, consequently were misleading. Williams Bros. Co. v. McIntosh, 226 Miss. 553, 84 So. 2d 692 (1956). We are therefore of the opinion that that Workmen's Compensation Commission properly excluded the opinions of the doctors that were based on the defective hypothetical and without the doctors' opinions there was insufficient evidence to show that the work activities of the deceased did not cause or contribute to the heart attack. To the contrary, Mrs. Alexander testified that the deceased constantly worried about *8 his job responsibility in that if he overestimated a job the company would not be awarded the contract and if he underestimated it, the company would lose money. She further testified that he worried about his work and talked to her about problems at the company; that he had become nervous and was easy to "flare up" and on several occasions she had heard him complain that "Well, we have a letting this afternoon but I don't see any use in going because they have got the prices too high;" and, that when the company raised his bid price and failed to get the job that he had the feeling of inadequacy; that he was concerned and worried that the company was spending too much time on strand-steel jobs than on the other aspects of the business; that he complained to her that Mr. Campbell would always put him off until the last minute to get a job together before a bid, as appeared to be the case on the day of his death, and that this was taxing to him and caused tension. Moreover, it was developed by the testimony that the two doctors were of different "schools of thought" as to the effect of exertion and stress as it relates to a coronary artery disease. Dr. Boggan was of the opinion that the disease is not officially affected by anything other than extreme exertion. On the other hand, Dr. Fyke was of another school of thought and expressed his feelings thusly: He further testified that "... stress is probably best defined as man's reaction to his environment... ." And again he testified that it "Can hasten and accelerate the disease which leads up to the heart attack." He was further asked this question: In view of the above testimony, we are of the opinion that there was substantial evidence upon which the Workmen's Compensation Commission could have found the decedent's employment aggravated his preexisting condition and thereby contributed to his death. Since it is undisputed that deceased had a history of hypertensive vascular disease dating from about 1962, this case must be remanded for an apportionment of benefits as ordered by the Workmen's Compensation Commission. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the judgment of the circuit court should be reversed and the order of the Workmen's Compensation Commission remanding the cause to the attorney-referee for an apportionment should be reinstated. Reversed and order of Workmen's Compensation Commission reinstated remanding case to attorney-referee for purpose of apportioning benefits. RODGERS, P.J., and INZER, ROBERTSON and BROOM, JJ., concur.