Court Opinion

ID: 9538339
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:35:17.192745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:46.509707
License: Public Domain

McGehee, C. J.
(dissenting).
My vote on the suggestion of error herein does not affect the result of the decision to overrule the same, since there are three judges in favor of affirming the decision of the trial judge in the case, but in view of the importance of the case as bearing on the question of what weight we shall give to the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission as an administrative agency, I am impressed with the views expressed in the dissenting opinion of Justice Alexander on that question.
In view of the uncertainty of the testimony as to how many veneer slabs the employee lifted or as to approximately how much they may have weighed, since the proof shows that they weighed from one ounce to eight or ten pounds, and he failed to testify clearly that they were even of a heavy weight at all, it is doubtful that the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission should have been disturbed, and especially in view of the fact that it is clear that the employee’s failure to return to work on the next morning was due to the want of transportation, and that the commission could have reasonably concluded that his failure to go to work on the second morning, after having reported at the job about 6:00 a. m., was due to the fact that some one had then been put in his place. And consistent with the opinion that I have this day written, and believe, to be correct and in accord with the general legal jurisprudence of the country, in the case of City of Meridian v. David*640son, Miss., 53 So. (2d) 48, as to the extent to which the courts should review and disturb the finding of an executive or administrative- agency, I am constrained to join in the dissent of Justices Alexander and Boberds.