130 So. 2d 858 | Miss. | 1961
Cudahy Packing Company and its insurance carrier appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Scott County reversing the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission and reinstating the order of the attorney referee.
It was stipulated that Mrs. Myrtle Ward, claimant and appellee, while working for the Cudahy Packing Company, sustained an injury to her right hand in June 1957, as the result of dropping some boxes on her hand. The attorney referee found that the appellee had sustained permanent partial disability of thirty-three and one-third per cent loss of use of her right hand.
The Workmen’s Compensation Commission reversed the finding of the attorney referee and awarded the appellee compensation for a seventy-five per cent loss of the use of the third and fourth fingers.
The circuit court reversed the decision of the Commission and reinstated the award of the attorney referee holding in effect that the Commission was in error and that the finding of the attorney referee was abundantly supported by the record.
The sole question before us is whether the Commission’s award of seventy-five per cent loss of the use of the third and fourth fingers was based on substantial
Dr. Neil examined the appellee on July 21, 1958, and testified that he didn’t see any disability from a neurosurgical and neurological standpoint. Dr. Neil stated that he also examined her at a subsequent date on August 25, 1,959, and that as a result of disuse she had suffered a disability of ten per cent to the hand.
The appellee testified that she could not use her hand; that she suffers pain in her hand, arm and shoulder, and that on account of her injury she has become virtually left-handed.
The appellee argues that she sustained an injury to her hand and that the loss of use of her third and fourth fingers was due to the injury to her hand. However, it is to be noted that her own doctor, who was introduced by appellee, testified that she sustained a seventy-five per cent loss to the third and fourth fingers. Dr. Neil
We are of tbe opinion that tbe Commission’s award of seventy-five per cent loss of tbe use of tbe third and fourth fingers is supported by substantial evidence, this award being more than tbe ten per cent disability as testified to by Dr. Neil.
We have held in innumerable cases that tbe Commission is tbe trier of tbe facts and its findings will be affirmed when supported by substantial evidence.
The reversal of tbe Commission’s award by tbe circuit court was error. It follows that the judgment is reversed and tbe award of tbe Commission is reinstated and tbe cause remanded to tbe Commission.
Reversed and award of tbe Commission reinstated, and remanded.