Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

U. S. RUBBER RECLAIMING COMPANY, INC., AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. DEPENDENTS OF HOWARD STAMPLEY

JUNE 03, 1987

U. S. RUBBER RECLAIMING COMPANY, INC., AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
DEPENDENTS OF HOWARD STAMPLEY, JR., DECEASED



BEFORE WALKER, C.J., DAN LEE AND PRATHER, JJ.

DAN LEE, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

Howard Stampley fell dead on his job at the U. S. Rubber Reclaiming Company on January 28, 1984. A Motion to Controvert was filed with the Workers' Compensation Commission on behalf of his dependents on April 10, 1934, and the case was heard by an Administrative Law Judge on October 9, 1984. After reviewing the testimony of Stampley's family, other company employees, and medical personnel, the ALJ found that there was a compensable injury. The judge found that three of Stampley's children and one of his grandchildren were dependent upon Stampley, and should receive maximum death -benefits. However, he found insufficient evidence that Lillie Mae Stampley, Howard Stampley's purported widow, had participated in a ceremonial marriage to Stampley, pursuant to a license.

The full Commission reviewed this Order and affirmed it on May 2, 1985. On October 16, 1985, the Circuit Judge affirmed the Commission. U. S. Rubber and its carrier, Liberty Mutual, have appealed, assigning as error:

 1. The findings of fact and conclusions of law are contrary

 to the overwhelming weight of the evidence and manifestly wrong.

 2. The finding that Stampley died of unknown causes required the appellants to meet a burden of proof contrary to the law, and there was error in the finding that they failed to rebut the fell-dead presumption of causal connection.

 3. There was error in the denial of apportionment.

 4. Michael Stampley, Sandra Stampley, Aretha Stampley, and Shonda Stampley were not entitled to death benefits, nor were they entitled to $1250.00 in funeral expenses.

 We hold that the Commission's order was amply supported by the evidence and the law, and that none of the assigned errors has merit. Therefore, we affirm.

 FACTS

 Horace Stampley, a forty-three-year-old man, died at his place of employment on Saturday, January 28, 1984. At the time of his death, he was engaged in the performance of his duties, which were primarily the changing of screens on the company's bagging machines. That task involved unscrewing a jam nut, lifting the screen (which weighed, at most, about 36 pounds), cleaning the screen, and putting it back on the machine.

 On the day of Stampley's death, he had reported to work at 7:00 a.m. He worked in one area of the plant until he took his 9:00 a.m. break. Then he returned to the area where he cleaned screens and engaged in conversation with some of his co-workers.

 At about 10:40 a. m., Stampley descended approximately 16-17 steps from the second floor area, where he normally worked, to the main floor, where Roscoe Younger's bagging machine was located. Stampley asked Younger to turn his machine off so that he could remove the screen. As Younger turned to comply with this request, he heard Stampley say, "Oh." Turning back around to face Stampley, Younger saw him fall against a bagging machine, then roll off it and hit the floor.

 Younger rushed to Stampley and asked him if he was all right, but got no response. Two other workers helped Younger turn Stampley over and begsn CPR. Stampley's eyes were dilated and red, and there was a bloody foam about his mouth. He never regained consciousness. Stampley was transported to Vicksburg Medical Center about 10-15 minutes ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.