Hart v. Jackson Cartage Co.

Mississippi Supreme Court

Hart v. Jackson Cartage Co.

371 So. 2d 405, 1979 Miss. LEXIS 2069

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedMay 23, 1979

DocketNo. 51087

StatusPublished

This text of 371 So. 2d 405 (Hart v. Jackson Cartage Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hart v. Jackson Cartage Co., 371 So. 2d 405, 1979 Miss. LEXIS 2069 (Mich. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PATTERSON, Chief Justice,

for the Court:

This is a workmen’s compensation case which is affirmed under the authority of Georgia-Pacific Corporation v. Charles L. McLaurin, 370 So.2d 1359 (1979).

However, the reversal on appeal to the circuit court was on the basis that the testimony of a medical doctor was erroneously permitted into evidence because it was “hearsay.” Had the same testimony been given by the doctor in person, it would have been competent, leaving the probability the case would have been affirmed by the circuit judge on appeal, thereby entitling the claimant to compensation. In our opinion the claimant is entitled to his day in court to develop his claim through competent testimony.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED TO THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF CLAIM AND HEARING.

SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ., and SUGG, WALKER, BROOM, LEE, BOWLING and COFER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PATTERSON, Chief Justice,

for the Court:

This is a workmen’s compensation case which is affirmed under the authority of Georgia-Pacific Corporation v. Charles L. McLaurin, 370 So.2d 1359 (1979).

However, the reversal on appeal to the circuit court was on the basis that the testimony of a medical doctor was erroneously permitted into evidence because it was “hearsay.” Had the same testimony been given by the doctor in person, it would have been competent, leaving the probability the case would have been affirmed by the circuit judge on appeal, thereby entitling the claimant to compensation. In our opinion the claimant is entitled to his day in court to develop his claim through competent testimony.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED TO THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF CLAIM AND HEARING.

SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ., and SUGG, WALKER, BROOM, LEE, BOWLING and COFER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

371 So. 2d 405, 1979 Miss. LEXIS 2069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hart-v-jackson-cartage-co-miss-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack