Opinion ID: 1914631
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Was the award of the commission excessive?

Text: In Graham v. City of Kosciusko, supra , we stated: A full hearing should be afforded both sides. Required nursing services should be separated from general household duties and work that a wife ordinarily performs in and about the home in looking after and caring for her husband and children. There should be testimony from doctors as to how many hours per day would be required for special nursing services for the claimant from July 8, 1964, to February 23, 1972. (339 So.2d at 65) The only medical evidence adduced came from Dr. Neill who opined that claimant required eight hours per day of nursing services during the period involved. Claimant and his wife asserted she spent fourteen to fifteen hours per day rendering nursing services to her husband. The fact that claimant's wife performed non-technical tasks is of no consequence as stated in Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Smith, supra : We also think insignificant the fact that the assistance requested involves essentially non-technical tasks resembling those performed by orderlies or licensed practical nurses in hospitals. (379 So.2d at 540) The only evidence adduced as to the rate of pay received by a licensed practical nurse came from Victoria Lee Niles, Assistant Administrator of the Montfort Jones Hospital, and Louis B. McInnis, the manager of the local office of the Mississippi State Employment Service. Niles testified that nurses aides began receiving minimum wage in 1967 or 1968 while licensed practical nurses received the following hourly rates in the specified years: 1964  $1.03; 1965  $1.03; 1966  $1.13; 1967  $1.44; 1968  $1.73; 1969  $1.88; 1970  $2.03; 1971  $2.18; and 1972  $2.30. According to Mr. McInnis, licensed practical nurses were paid minimum wages in 1964. The commission ordered that appellant pay claimant the prevailing federal minimum wage for eight hours a day from July 8, 1964, through February 23, 1972, excluding any periods for which claimant was confined to a hospital. A review of the record clearly reveals there was substantial evidence to support the award made by the commission and affirmed by the circuit court. Based on the foregoing reasons, this cause is affirmed. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., SUGG and WALKER, P. JJ., and BROOM, ROY NOBLE LEE, BOWLING, HAWKINS, and PRATHER, JJ., concur.