*1 211 principles With these in we do mind, not think duty judgment that the Board abused its use a sound light which it facts had before it at the time of the order of November or in view of the facts 10th, subsequently presented chancery Appellees to the court. determining are vested with a reasonable discretion in lowest and who the best and have serious bidder, responsibility public making substantial chancery determination. The court found as a fact that upon decision the Board’s was based an honest exercise upon amply supported of discretion and facts which their order. On this record we not be warranted in reversing that action.
Affirmed. Kyle, Arrington
McGehee, G.J., and and Lotterhos, JJ., concur. Tung v. Pearl River Company, et al. 7, 1953
Dec. No. 38945 45 Adv. 73 442 S. 2d So. *2 Stewart, William H. for Poplarville, appellant. Poplarville, appellees. II. II. Parker, *3 J. Lee, appeal by judgment
This is an Mrs. J. C. from a County of the Circuit Court of Pearl River which af- Compensation Com- order of Workmen’s ail firmed compensation denying benefits. her certain to mission employee Tnng Beyer, of Pearl Biver Com- an Mrs. employment injured on course her pany, was being when the truck in which she was 19,1949, December transported and down embankment ran an home, complained of on its side. She over somewhat tilted immediately B. being to Dr. H. was taken and hurt, treating period of five her over a after Cowart, who, discharged insurance carrier her, and notified the weeks, accordingly. the carrier offered thereafter, Sometime compensation being but at week, $10 five weeks $50, accept Beyer it. The record shows refused to Mrs. parties correspondence and the between the there was Fi- was concluded. the matter never but Commission, attorney, Beyer employed nally filed a and an he Mrs. attorney-referee April and on claim formal controversy June 1951. heard Beyer hearing, manner testified On namely, ran the truck wreck occurred, which the She and tilted over to the side. down an embankment opposite “the side, the seats to the over was thrown people hampers and her, knocked out of” and breath was fifty years upon piled At the time she was her. were complained pounds. weighed age She immediately and was side, taken hurt in back him told about the where she Cowart, the office of places body on her where she indicated accident and strapped pain. suffering The doctor her back *4 eight in bed for her home. She remained sent side during visited her several days, the doctor time, which got she went to his office bed, out of When she times. period, and there- week for a considerable twice a about every two until the date week or weeks once a after about Following hearing. took examination, the first she of the prescribed until regular^ which had been the medicine medicine she took time, weeks. Since the last several for relief as it was needed. She remained with her strapped side injury. back and for five weeks after the weight At the pounds. of dropped time the trial her to 220 injury She never had an before this one, but was put day’s able to, in a full did, work, with sometimes considerable overtime. She has not worked since the injury and has not been (her able “to even wash John husband) pair pants of since then.” Malley,
John the driver gave of the truck, corrobora- injury. tion to the manner of the He testified that about passengers complained three of his being of hurt, al- though may others have been scratched.
Dr. H. B. Reyer Cowart testified that when Mrs. came to his in the office, late afternoon, she said that she had been in a complaining terribly wreck, of her arm, side shoulder, and back. However ex- he saw no signs ternal of He went to her home times three and she then came to his office at least once a week or every two weeks ever since. He testified when a that, patient complains pain, the doctor takes such fact granted, as he gave cannot see it. So he her sedatives purpose. for His idea was that she had a neuritis. injury, In a nerve sign. there is no A dick of kind upset which she sys- received “could the central nervous point tem to the she would suffer a lot from It would it. likely injury for her to have such as a result of the wreck. She walked and used her but when did arm, she complained pain, “probably so, and this savors permanent nature.” The doctor admitted that he dis- charged January gave that he 1950; thought Compensation her all of the time that he patients usually snap Commission would allow; that out condition; such but that he was not infallible. He saw injury, her a number of times after the and she com- still plained pain, opinion, in his and, she was still unable period to work. long After observation of her for this opinion of time, it was his retroactive that she received *5 parts. injury her in affected He nerves the also an depends profession neurolo- the medical that testified gists determining patient them in whether a suf- to aid pain from a nerve fers attorney-referee, juncture, the with the consent
At this attorneys parties, the ordered examination the an of by neurologist, P. B. Dr. Donaldson, of the claimant by competent Dr. man was recommended Cowart who The examination was made the doctor in that field. and July report, dated with the Commis- filed his history consisting report gave a case, of the The sion. injury and of the wreck and the claimant’s of the manner pain. complaint It the recited result of various her as to they sign that of neuro- concluded revealed no tests, and ‘‘ complaints logical It The disease. observed that: above typical mixed shows neurosis. She both are rather of anxiety symptoms. The distribution of and conversion typical psychoneurosis. pain that of a her of conversion a traumatic It be hard to differentiate between compensation psychoneurosis psyclioneurosis in this and produced a wreck would have case. It is doubtful that already symptoms that did not these an individual personality makeup. possible It is that have a neurotic precipitating There was no the factor. accident was a working prevent neurological from her disease that would at this time.” a wreck the the claimant showed evidence complaint. her corrobo-
truck immediate was This by that truck, the driver who also testified rated passengers slightly injured time. An at the other were doctor, while no examination forthwith strapped injury, evidence such that he was external pain. gave side her medicine to relieve back and come her in her home until she was able to attended He treating opinion after that, to his office. His such was discharge weeks, her; but when he could five her for persisted, he came to the infallible, he was not since developed following conclusion a neuritis, injury, pain. cause of her evidently opinion Cowart was good very faith. The fact that he continued to see *6 give long period medicine over this of time indicates clearly suspicion he did not have even that she was malingering. Although found no evidence Dr. Donaldson neurological report wholly of to the silent as disease, pain. the cause of proof case,
Under the in this it seems conclusive injury that this woman con received an and has suffered pain siderable and, ever on that she since, account, has been rendered unable to work. Dr. Cowart attributed this to a condition neuritis. Dr. Donaldson find no could neurological prevent which disease should her from work ing, way, but in no he, accounted for her in no and, way, pain. controverted the fact that she has such The disability by pain, of fact therefore, reason exists. inability fingers put of doctors to their on the exact physical casting cause should not claim result in the over possessed by knowledge board. great allWith the the now profession, medical knowl it is a matter common edge diagnosis ailments sometimes the of human greatest baffles the medical minds.
The evidence for the claimant neither dis puted nor in its contradicted material features. It was inherently improbable, or incredible, unreasonable, untrustworthy. In such it circumstances, should not arbitrarily capriciously rejected. S., See C. J. pp. or Evidence, Section 1089-92: Uncontradicted undisputed ordinarily should evidence be taken true. as precisely, More pos- evidence which is not contradicted testimony inherently itive or im- and is not circumstances, probable, incredible, or unreasonable, be arbitrar- cannot ily capriciously disregarded, rejected, or or discredited, though party even the interested; and, witness ais or untrustworthy, unless showmto be is to be taken as con- binding and where fact; on the triers elusive, it within to a fact which evidence tends establish opposing party power dis- of the to and to the interest disprove attempt prove, to if his to failure false, tending strengthens probative evidence force of the prove evi- no contradictions, to are it. Where there dence of as a whole and a witness must be considered setting given.” in which it was appellees good to after believe, had reason Besides, compensation accept five weeks of refused to payment disability, matter would in full óf they ample Consequently, time be controverted. proof doing, to whether obtain as to she was what good malingering, faith, and as whether she was they consciously not word But offered otherwise. testimony dispute her. the evidence or discredit Even in criminal where the defendant is the cases, *7 accepted witness, his be as reasonáble, if must version, partic- substantially true material unless contradicted in by by physical ulars or facts common facts, the the knowledge. 2d 32 v. 202 426, Miss. So. State, Westbrook Weathersby 147 So. 251; v. 165 Miss. 481. State, 207, conclusively opinion,
In our the evidence showed that Mrs. to work and, therefore, was disabled only period, compensation entitled to for five-week the week the but also for each week thereafter at $10 hearing, such date the and is entitled to likewise weekly during amount continuance of thereafter, the disability, by provided law.
In view above not deemed neces- conclusion, the sary go question compensa- into of traumatic psychoneuroses, report tion which were to in the referred of Dr. is much which, and as to there author- Donaldson, ity I, them the books. Some of Yol. Larson’s are Compensation pp. 616-21inclu- Section Law, 42.22-42.24, Indemnity Company, 209 ; sive Hood v. Insurance Texas 2d S. W. 345.
219 judgment attorney-referee, by Tlie of the as affirmed the Commission and the circuit court, denied insofar as it compensation at the rate of a week from and after $10 January July 24, 1950, until date order judgment thereon, is reversed, and a will en- appellant together tered here for the for such benefits, with lawful interest.
The record does not, not, could show whether this disability Consequently, has continued. the cause is re- may ques- manded so Commission determine that development July tion in accordance with since 1951. 25, judgment appellant, here for Reversed, and remanded. Kyle, Arrington, Hall, JJ., Holmes and concur. J., dissenting: Lotterhos, appellant
It stands admitted in case that suf- compensable injury fered a on December 1949. 19, question only before the Court whether there is sub- support stantial evidence in the record to attorney-referee, by affirmed the commission and appellant the circuit temporarily court, period disabled of five If weeks. there is substan- support tial finding, evidence of this then the attor- ney-referee arbitrarily, and the commission did not act judicial and their decision should be affirmed on re- Barry view. v. Sanders 211 Co., 656, 493, Miss. 52 So. 2d Deemer Lumber Co. v. Hamilton, Miss. 52 So. Magnolia 634; 2d Thornton v. Textiles, Inc., Miss., 172; So. 2d Fischer v. Gloster Lumber etc. Co., Miss., 57 So. 2d Mangum, 871; and Mastin & Co. v. *8 215 Miss. 454, So. 2d 298. majority opinion,
In the this Court has reviewed the conclusively” evidence, and has found “showed Reyer up that Mrs. was “disabled to work” to the date attorney-referee’s July of the 25, 1951—over a order — year a and half after the It seems to me that it finding fact its to substitute is error for this Court attorney-referee for that of the and the commission on they for it to me that suffi- record, seems a in evidence cient basis the to determine whether the in- permanent. temporary my specially jury or See was opinion concurring in Pearl Cowart, Carrie Guardian v. Tung et 67 So. 2d for a Co., al., Miss., 356, 361, River situation. discussion of similar necessary for to to the matters It is me refer some of my record, order to make views disclosed clear. Reyer employed har- December, 1949,
In Mrs. was injured vesting tung 19, on December nuts. She was transported being from her work. while to her home They work Her had started the work in October. last prior plant, packing during the tomato in a to that was spring. preceding season, in family physician, Cowart, made his H. B. Her Dr. certifying report 8, 1950, March final medical on discharged work and able to return to she was as cured accept January declined to 24, on 1950. Mrs. disability, compensation her for five weeks’ tendered to April report. 10, Thereafter, on on the doctor’s based commission, with the of claim 1951, she filed her notice May The formal claim. 1951, filed her on 25, attorney-referee 1951. 20, trial before the was on June permit hearing to The was recessed examination neurologist, Reyer by which examination Mrs. July attorney-referee made and the 11, 1951, made July finding com- 25, and order on 1951. The full his September 1951, and later the affirmed on mission circuit court affirmed. with re- now evidence the record
We come Rey- spect conclusively whether it is shown that up injuries totally July disabled er’s mere- basis whether there ly substantial disability. temporary were: Mrs. witnesses physician; Reyer, Cowart, her claimant; John *9 Malley, testify did not about who the extent of her in- juries; neurologist and Dr. Prank A. Donaldson, and psychiatrist, Beyer by who Mrs. examined consent of all parties report. and made a written Dr. Donaldson did person, testify opportunity but both sides had the to cross-examine him, and declined to do so. testimony Beyer respect
The sworn Mrs. with injuries disability following. and was limited to the She described the of December 19, 1919, and, accident happened replied, when asked what her, “Well, I while don’t remember because breath was knock- piled many they got ed out of me so and so on me until hardly they got them out I remember until them out happened, they got what but after I them out realized question I In was hurt.” answer ato similar she said, body, I “Well, fell other side the truck across telling the other seats, side, across the and no there was hampers piled top they who all and on of me until could get up testimony them and out.” Her then continues: Beyer, put your
“Q. You said this Mrs. side, your portion your hand back, that is the left lower back? my right
“A. Yes, sir, whole side across just liga- here, ribs and across it was mashed until the ments and tendons all in and muscles was torn side strapped stayed I loose. well, about five it was weeks— five weeks. long stay you How did in bed?
“Q. only stayed eight days, “A. I bed but was not stayed, lay I I because should not have there until I up get my help I would couldn’t, husband up me to sit and rest. you weigh? much
“Q. How do weighed weighed “A. last time I I 220. you weigh Did at the accident? “Q. time of the weighed “A. I 260. you any work Have done whatsoever since
“Q. Beyer? time, pair
“A. I not been able to wash John a have even pants since then. you physician’s “Q. Have been under care? “A. a month, Dr. Cowart me once or twice Well, sees *10 anyway, just put going I much I off him as see keep my purse keep easy all I medicine in me can, the time.” spent “quite Reyer
Mrs. further that had testified she lately until lot” for medicine and bills; doctor’s long, gone every she had “for a Cowart week long prescriptions had time;” she had filled over quit taking and over; that for the last few weeks she doing medicine “it did not because seem to be me much just good just at the' I time, had taken so much I turned against just something it. I take when I have to to ease anywhere that “I have me;” and not worked since then. Reyer cross-examination, On Mrs. stated that she get not tried to a record of the number of times she had prescription say re-filled, and “would definite not ly” many how because times, she “swore to tell the truth” and she did not have the record. She “did take lots of it.” She admitted the commission wrote August requesting her on 3, 1950, additional doctor’s re ports making if she was further claim, and that she had reports. not in sent such She said that the ad was on vice of Dr. Cowart. testify
It is noted that did under oath Mrs. disabling to the nature her and extent and effect of pain, except by general inferential the most com- testify did not under oath that was ments. She she totally working 19, 1949, disabled from from December stand, when she was on the witness to June except by comments. I endeavored to set similar have fairly support fully all that testified in out she permanent disability resulting from the acci- total and attorney-referee, through saw commission, dent. stand. her demeanor on the witness and observed The other that of the two evidence to be considered is Cowart, doctors. The Dr. H. B. who Mrs. first was Beyer’s family physician. in Decem- He testified that Beyer “complaining ber, 1949, of her arm, came in having side back had a wreck, said, fell ont of examining He truck.” stated his after her in these “Well, words: her condition at that time, since subjective then as far concerned, as that’s in na- hurting ture. She her, said side was her shoulder, complained terribly They brought arm and back, with it. my any I office the late afternoon. didn’t see injuries. signs subjec- external I all said, As it was Beyer tive.” Dr. Cowart testified that Mrs. came to his “pretty regularly office for the first month,” and that he went to her house about three times. She came to his office about approximately twice week for a month. After the first month she came “once a week two prescribed way weeks.” He “in the of sedations, some- thing for expressed she said she had.” He his *11 professional opinion wrong of what was with her as fol- yes, “Well, lows: I have an idea it was one of those occasionally cases that we see here and do find neu- of subjective ritis. IAs it all been said, has of a nature. pain, patient you hurting You can’t see if a tells she is place way you a grant- in certain in a certain for take it ed she is.”
When the accident described, was and he was asked perma- “likely whether “a lick like that” would be to nently injure Beyer’s a woman” of Mrs. Dr. size, Cowart replied: upset sys- “Well, it central could nervous point tem to the a it. she would suffer lot from Now I say permanent would not of a it would be nature be- you get away things cause do from those after while, you away badly work from it.” to how in- As she was jured, symp- stated: as I her “Well, said, Cowart subjective. were all hurt, toms She told me where she hurt, how continued to tell me I she and has this. year half later have her word it. Now here a and a complains probably per- it. she still That savors Reyer had no manent nature.” He stated that Mrs. herself, that “she walked in contin- bones; broken only she does it in arms, has handled her walk, ued to says.” pain, she physical allow her whether her condition
As to pick up tung “Well, accord- Dr. Cowart said: nuts, to standpoint, subjective can’t, ing, she I from a said, as sign go external I There is no all to on. no, that is have signs any get injury, you external but don’t of an go injury You have on what a in a nerve leading ques- you person it. In answer to a tells about physical con- if woman “of her size and tion he said likely” “be like it would that,” received a “lick dition” injury.” wheth- “that When asked that Avouldhave replied: thought he work, he able to er possi- problematical. might that she It that is “Well, bly doing things not could, do, that it hurts away develop with from it.” rest, to whether her As Avouldallow her work, said, condition he “No, says.” question according to Avhatshe And then, entirely subjective symp- “that whether based replied “absolutely.” he toms?” sign that The doctor testified there no external injury when he since; he examined that first January discharged her on certificate 24, 1949; his expressed time; to that effect his conviction at that examination and treatment was the result of his change patient; and that he saAV“no reason to of that date.” He said that was his definite decision report. whether when he made the When asked he change anything the certificate that would his seen since opinion, just along “Well, that she comes he said: still *12 complains you I said, it was of it, know, all, of subjective a I have number of times nature. seen a complains it. The doctor then and she then still since say leading question, he Avould a that said, in answer to work. unable to she is still attorney-referee then seemed to be in doubt as to perma-
whether there was a for an basis allowance for disability proof nent on the before him. Note in that con- nection that Dr. Cowart had testified that there nowas injury; external evidence that the accident “could upset system point the central nervous to she would suffer a lot from that he it;” had “an idea it was one occasionally of those cases that we see here and do find symptoms subjective;” of neuritis;” that “her were all might and that she have a nerve In that situa- attorney-referee ques- tion, asked Dr. Cowart some tions, as shown below: ‘‘ your opinion Q. is it Doctor, now that this acci- injury dent this woman received ato nerve or nerves? “A. That would be—that would be our retroactive opinion you you it, know, that do that, nerves know. you
“Q. Yes, sir. Do consider in- woman’s jury, injury if there an is is to the nerves are in injured? her back or in the where area she was injured. “A. The nerves the -area where she was opinion your Is it now “Q. that those nerves were damaged? According way explains
“A. her, con- she say yes, I thing got go dition, it was, I have on it. description
“Q. Was her indi- at that time you injured? cative to that those nerves had been yes, say “A. I Well, it was. entirely symptoms gave you
“Q. Based she professional your opinion injury she received to those nerves, true, is that Doctor?
“A. Yes, sir. you you any
“Q. Doctor, did know, or do know of by specialist may test made aor test that made specialist on this woman to determine whether or injured suffering now from ? nerves heading sir, “A. that would Yes, come under neurologist. *13 person, you. Doctor? Do know such
“Q. neurologists, yes, yes, they good Oh, “A. have two outstanding neurologists, at Oschner’s Clinic. In New
“Q. Orleans? Dr. at does “A. sir. Donaldson Jackson Yes, work. Dr. B. Donaldson?
“Q. “A. J. D. I it
J. think is. profession tests known medical such “Q. Is it your opinion determine whether or this that could your time after dis- woman is at time and at the suffering- charge January fide 1950, bona of her on injury? pain from her nerve standpoint injury might whatever Prom the “A. yes, root of nerves, centers, from nerve
have been the nerve. ‘‘ capable neurologist ? be that, of that And a Q. depend yes. them for
“A. We on cap- opinion your Dr. Donaldson would be it “Q. Is able? an accredited man a neurolo- “A. he is Yes, sir, ’’
gist. attorney-referee himto that it seemed then stated by expert; Reyer examined an and that Mrs. should parties arranged for Dr. Don- all consent of report. her and make his to examine aldson psychiatrist, neurologist examined Donaldson, Dr. and July written re- and made his Mrs. port. symptoms, he him of
As to what she told complaint report “offers a chief in the that she stated my completely dying left side side, on the left of ‘I am just sleep’;” pain goes that “she on the left ‘‘ pleurisy pain continued; that it that this side; pain;” get type that “she couldn’t and her breath.” report Donaldson’s is as follows: The remainder past history in- reveals no unusual illnesses or “Her personality juries, sign deviation, of marked she no prior any to her tendencies neurotic denied complained pain right “She of a in the sacroiliac re- gion up pain up goes the back on both sides. This through the back, the neck, her neck draws backward goes then all over her head. She states that at times she has a band-like around head and that eye gives her left her trouble. She states that has *14 eye eye. right seen double in more her left in than her complains pain She also of a over the left side of her anteriorly, away, chest her states that turns heart runs flip flops and has felt she has heart trouble. complains pain She aof in the left knee like a toothache, gets states that her left a in ankle catch it and that she up hardly complains itching can stand on it. She in palm the of her left hand. deep
“Neurological examination be shows reflexes to equal throughout. good and in active Muscle all tone is Pupils equal, extremities. Cranial nerves are intact. are light Eye grounds react and accommodation. are Vibratory normal. sensation normal in all extremi- is any ties and there is no difference in of the sensation Neurological right tests the and left side. examina- sign neurological tion reveals no disease. complaints typical “The rather of a mixed above are symp- anxiety neurosis. both conversion She shows and pain typical The her that of toms. distribution of is psycho-neurosis. a to dif- conversion It would hard psychoneurosis and com- ferentiate between traumatic pensation psychoneurosis in this case. It is doubtful that produced symptoms a wreck would have dividual that did not an in- these in
already personality have a neurotic makeup. possible precipitat- It is accident was ing neurological factor. There was no disease that would prevent working her from at this time. by
These are the facts as disclosed The record. proof burden of was on the claimant to show the evi- totally dence that engaging she was disabled from in work, as a result of the from accident, 19, December (the trial), 20, 1949, June date of order compensation permanent The recover for as attorney- imposes upon its the commission and statute duty hearing the evidence referee the and function determining issues of fact. and hearing finding after case, In fact in this his attorney-referee and stated that he “finds witnesses, holds injury slight in an the claimant here received arising temporary in the out of and effect, nature employment” ad- and “finds and course of her such interposed permanent judges dis- that the claim here ability hereby dismissed.” be and the same is say
I we that the above do not see how can arbitrary evidence. basis in the and without a substantial testify attorney-referee ob- the claimant heard on the witness she was her demeanor. "When served stand, positive and made no oath, and under the claimant about nature and amount of direct statements January, 1949, between when her doctor she suffered continuity discharged her, nor about the June, pain. testimony concerned, In far of such so *15 tak- we from her about draw inferences statements must any ing going in to doctor, medicine and order find proof pain. we find that manner, continued In like quite testimony general regard inability is in her to pain. reading work a A as result this careful testimony certainly that it claimant’s discloses is finding alone, to make commission’s arbi- sufficient, trary. important proof in a like is
But more case from Here, that which comes the doctors. we find that practitioner, family general good a in faith doctor, January discharged the claimant on as cured nothing He had and able to return work. seen since “just except opinion change his she still comes to along complains you all, as I it, know, said, was and testimony subjective Dr. Cowart’s a nature.” about subsequent pain five the first weeks was in such complains general of it.” statements as that “she still pointed subjective. always The He out that was gist him, based what she said to conclusion, of his injury; probably nerve but he was that she suffered a specialist neurology, and stated not claim to be a did neurologist whether that a would be able to determine injury. Beyer suffering nerve in fact from a Mrs. competent Accordingly, neurologist a examined report clearly examination claimant. shows that his His injury finding or nerve in a that she had no resulted Every finding neurological that examina- from disease. enumerates normal. But this doctor tion is that she was Beyer complaints pains re- long Mrs. list of July these It noted that 11, 1951. him, lated to as of complaints vastly Dr. from those shown different are testimony. Cowart’s injury Beyer nerve free from
After upon neurological Donald- Dr. examination, disease, complaints that the for the to account son undertakes subjective patient Dr. elements, to him—the related they says that Donaldson Cowart described them. typical what does he are rather of a mixed neurosis. But subjective pain say and these about the cause of this complaints? produced have that a wreck would “It is doubtful symptoms that did not in an individual these ’’ makeup. already personality There is have a neurotic Beyer nothing that Mrs. al- in this record to indicate report personality. ready In fact, had a neurotic past history unusual illnesses that “her reveals no states injuries, sign personality no of marked deviation, or she any prior denied neurotic tendencies to her sign Dr. Donaldson found that there was “no of neuro- logical disease.” concluding, statement that Dr. Donald- next, possible is: “It accident makes,
son that the *16 precipitating neurological factor. There no disease prevent working would her from this time.” It at possi- been held that verdicts based on mere has often appear bilities cannot stand; that, and it would stronger a this accident did reason, permanent disability cause be should not stricken down merely possible (the accident) it because that it precipitating Certainly, logically factor. be it cannot report conclusively said that the Dr. Donaldson shows permanent that the disability. accident of December caused appear testimony Neither does it that Dr. Cowart’s conclusively proves permanent disability resulting from practitioner, general thought the accident. As a he probably Reyer injury, Mrs. had suffered a nerve based complaints pain. on her But he deferred ex- perts neurology question; for tests to determine this Dr. Donaldson found no nerve says
So we have here a case where a claimant she suf- disabling pain, physical fers but the doctors find no system for it, basis In either in the nervous or elsewhere. body fact-finding such a it case, seems to me that the (whether jury, attorney-referee, commission) has the proper weighing function of evidence, and determ- ining pain actually whether —and to what extent—the exists, as result of the accident. really
But let us assume that the claimant here suffers complains. says— of which Donaldson “It between hard to differentiate a traumatic psychoneurosis compensation psychoneurosis in case.” if course, Of has suffered a traumatic psychoneurosis, as a result of the accident, and is dis- thereby, compensation. abled she is entitled to This opinion, majority stated, Court has in the that “it is not question necessary go deemed into the of traumatic or compensation psychoneuroses, which were referred to in report of Dr. Donaldson.” However, seems to me giving that, ing the Court nevertheless, effect its bless- “compensation psychoneurosis,” as a basis payment, specialist says because that it is hard to psychoneurosis differentiate between that and traumatic
231 perma- making case, this and this Court disability. nent Compensation
Larson in his text on Workmen’s states (Sec. 42.24): Law “The most controversial mental-in- ‘ jury question compensability compensation ‘Compensation neurosis,’ which must be dis- neurosis.’ may tinguished malingering, from take the conscious prolong form of an pensation, obtain or com- unconscious desire to perhaps anxiety of sheer over outcome compensation litigation producing a either case —in genuine disabling claimant.” neurosis expert psychiatrist neurologist If the who exam- ined this claimant cannot differentiate between traumatic compensation psychoneurosis in it is dif- case, this yet ma- can And ficult to see how this Court do so. jority opinion conclu- finds that “the evidence showed up sively work” that Mrs. was disabled to July 25,1951, date of the but the Court disclaims order — “compensation psychoneu- applying liability based on rosis.”
Feeling in- decision, I Court its is, as do province vading finder of of the commission as the respectfully I dissent. facts, must JJjoin Ethridge, J., McGehee, and Roberds and G. in this dissent.
Rogers v. State. 7, 1953
Dec. 105 45 Adv. 68 So. 2d No. S.