Opinion
No. 42589.
February 18, 1963.
1. Workmen's compensation — work connected injury — substantial evidence supported Commission's findings against claimant.
Substantial evidence supported Commission's findings against claimant in case presenting fact question of whether injuries were sustained on job or elsewhere.
Headnote as approved by Gillespie, J.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Amite County; JAMES A. TORREY, Judge.
Calvin B. Wells, Natchez, for appellant.
I. The Circuit Court erred in affirming the ruling of the Commission in which claimant-appellant was denied compensation and said order of the attorney-referee was affirmed as stated, being based on speculation, conjecture and presumption and on no evidence. A finding of fact based on no evidence is an error of law. Central Electric Power Assn. v. Hicks, 236 Miss. 378, 110 So.2d 351; Davis v. Industrial Commission, 46 Ariz. 169, 49 P.2d 394; Holmes v. Holmes, 154 Miss. 713, 123 So. 865; Link v. Eastern Aircraft (N.J.), 47 A.2d 8; Lucedale Veneer Co. v. Rogers, 211 Miss. 613, 53 So.2d 69; Rains v. Rains, 17 N.J. Misc 310, 8 A. 715; Reyer v. Pearl River Tung Co., 219 Miss. 211, 68 So.2d 442; Rodriquez v. Underwood Glass Co. (La.), 140 So.2d 176; Russell v. Sohio Southern Pipe Lines, Inc., 236 Miss. 722, 112 So. 357; Shivers v. Biloxi-Gulfport Daily Herald, 236 Miss. 303, 110 So.2d 359; Sones v. Southern Lumber Co., 215 Miss. 148, 60 So.2d 582; Stanley v. Moan (Ariz.), 227 P.2d 389; Viltner Manufacturing Co. v. Jahnke, 192 Wis. 362, 212 N.W. 641, 57 A.L.R. 627; Wilson v. International Paper Co., 235 Miss. 153, 108 So.2d 554; Winter's Hardwood Dimension Co. Inc. v. Dependents of Harris, 236 Miss. 757, 112 So.2d 227; 32 C.J.S., Evidence, 1089; Dunn, Mississippi Workmen's Compensation, Sec. 167 p. 129; Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, Secs. 30.10, 30.20.
II. The Commission and Circuit Court erred in failing to give a liberal and fair interpretation to the Compensation Act. Central Electric Power Assn. v. Hicks, supra; Deemer Lumber Co. v. Hamilton, 211 Miss. 673, 52 So.2d 634; Ross v. Ross, 240 Miss. 84, 126 So.2d 512; Secs. 6998-01, 6998-26, Code 1942.
Daniel, Coker Horton, Jackson, for appellees.
I. There was ample substantial evidence to support the order of the full Commission affirming the attorney-referee and denying benefits, and therefore such order was properly affirmed by the Circuit Court below. Cole v. Superior Coach Corp., 234 Miss. 287, 106 So.2d 71; Cudahy Packing Co. v. Ward, 241 Miss. 595, 130 So.2d 858; Ed Bush Sandwich Shop v. Strauss, 243 Miss. 507, 138 So.2d 741; Itawamba Manufacturing Co. v. Dependents of Christian, 244 Miss. 587, 145 So.2d 161; Potts v. Lowery, 242 Miss. 300, 134 So.2d 474; Rivers Construction Co. v. Dubose, 241 Miss. 527, 130 So.2d 865.
(Hn 1) The attorney-referee, the full commission, and the circuit court all denied compensation to appellant. The question was one of fact whether appellant sustained her injuries on the job or elsewhere. The testimony was in conflict and there was substantial evidence to support the commission's finding against claimant. The substantial evidence rule has been stated and applied so many times, as evidenced by the long list of cases cited in Dunn's Workmen's Compensation, Sec. 179, 1963 Cumulative Supplement, that further illustration of the rule is not needed. The order of the commission is affirmed.
Affirmed.
McGehee, C.J., and Ethridge, Rodgers and Jones, JJ., concur.