128 So. 2d 114 | Miss. | 1961
This is a workmen’s compensation claim for death benefits arising from the death of an employee following an operation of a diaphragmatic hernia. The attorney-referee allowed the claim. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission disallowed the claim and the Circuit Court of Jackson County affirmed the Commission.
The decedent J. T. Commans was an employee of the Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation in Pascagoula, Mississippi, during the latter part of the year 1957. He was at that time 55 years of age, and employed in the capacity of an electrician. He died on December 3, 1957, leaving as his sole dependent under the Workmen’s Compensation Act his widow, Mrs. J. T. Commans. It was the testimony of the appellant, as well as her children, that the decedent’s general health had deteriorated for a period of approximately one year prior to his death. Mr. Commans had worked for Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation for several years. It was the testimony of Dr. Mclllwain that during the year 1956, when he
This Court has heretofore held that aggravation of a pre-existing hernia, or death as a result of an operation necessitated by the aggravation of a pre-existing hernia, is not compensable. Ryan Supply Co. v. Brett, 222 Miss. 30, 75 So. 2d 75; Fagan v. Wells-Lamont, Inc., 228 Miss. 660, 89 So. 2d 632; Flood v. NCO Mess, 238 Miss. 207, 118 So. 2d 294.
The appellants contend that the Workmen’s Compensation Act does not define hernia and in their brief cite from Medical Dictionary for Lawyers by Malloy, pages 254 and 255, some 47 definitions of hernia. They argue that we should make an exception as to this type
We feel that the exclusion of one type of hernia and inclusion of another type of hernia would be contrary to the intent of the legislature. Flood v. NCO Mess, supra, held: “The legislature by Section 6998-12, Code of 1942, has placed hernia claims under the compensation act in a different category and with this different criteria from those of other work-connected injuries. The workmen’s compensation act constitutes a statutory privilege, and we are not authorized to alter the legislative requirements for the benefits conferred, even though the restrictions in hernia cases are exceptionally stringent. ’ ’
The case is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.