Court Opinion

ID: 9572859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:45:09.998611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:34:29.819549
License: Public Domain

James Hugh McFaddin, Acting Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from the opinion of Mr. Justice Legge which would affirm the court below which found as a fact that maximum improvement was reached on September 2, 1959, and not December 1, 1958, as found by the Commission. This court said in Poole v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 227 S. C. 232, 87 S. E. (2d) 640, 642, in discussing the date of maximum healing for back injury:
“It . is difficult to determine with medical certainty the date of maximum healing * * * The determination of this question rests with the commission, and when the testimony of Dr. Moore is considered in connection with the other -testimony, we think the findings of the commission thereabout finds support in the evidence.”
The testimony of Dr. Brandy in this case was as follows:
“Q. Well, doctor, at that prior date (December 1, 1958) did you think he had reached maximum recovery? A. I thought he had. He was doing fairly well and when he returned, to work * * * whether it was just the added strain or working caused him to have some reoccurrence of difficulty. When I examined him in May he did not recall re-injuring his back at that time, but he seemed to have some difficulty all the time but he had been doing his work. (Emphasis added.)
“Q. In your opinion, doctor, is a person who has once had this surgery apt to have reoccurrence of the condition if he continues to operate the same or similar job which requires heavy lifting, bending and stooping after surgery as he did before? A. He probably would have some difficulty.
“Q. Not the same degree though? A, It would be more low back pain.”
The circuit court below is not concerned with the amount of the testimony nor is it a concern of this court; and neither *335the circuit court nor this court has a right to substitute their own opinion- as to the weight of the testimony for the opinion of the Commission. In a long line of cases this court has laid down the rule of law recently so aptly put by Mr. Chief Justice Taylor in Steed et al. v. Mt. Pleasant Seafood Company, 236 S. C. 253, 113 S. E. (2d) 827, 828:
“that the Industrial Commission is the fact-finding body; and this Court and the Circuit Court both being appellate Courts in workmen’s compensation matters, can only review the facts to determine whether or not there is any competent evidence to support the fact-finding body. If there is, both this Court and the Circuit Court are without power to pass upon the force and effect of such evidence. Rudd v. Fairforest Finishing Co., 189 S. C. 188, 200 S. E. 727; Ham v. Mullins Lumber Co., 193 S. C. 66, 7 S. E. (2d) 712; Jones v. Anderson Cotton Mills, 205 S. C. 247, 31 S. E. (2d) 447; Radcliffe v. Southern Aviation School, 209 S. C. 411, 40 S. E. (2d) 626; Hiers v. Brunson Construction Co., 221 S. C. 212, 70 S. E. (2d) 211; Mason v. Woodside Mills, 225 S. C. 15, 80 S. E. (2d) 334; Whitfield v. Daniel Construction Co., 226 S. C. 37, 83 S. E. (2d) 460; Wilson v. City of Darlington, 229 S. C. 62, 91 S. E. (2d) 714; Leonard v. Georgetown County, 230 S. C. 388, 95 S. E. (2d) 777. When there is a conflict in the evidence either of different witnesses or of the same witness, the findings of fact of the Industrial Commission, as triers of fact, are conclusive. Cokeley v. Robert Lee, Inc., 197 S. C. 157, 14 S. E. (2d) 889; Gurley v. Mills Mill, 225 S. C. 46, 80 S. E. (2d) 745.”
While it is true that there is some testimony that maximum healing was reached on both dates, courts should not usurp the power of the Commission to evaluate medical testimony relative to when an injured back reaches its maximum healing.
For the foregoing reasons I conclude that the court below was in error in finding that the date of maximum improve*336ment was September 2, 1959, and not December 1, 1.958, as found by the Commission. In all other respects I concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice Legge.