Aetna Insurance Company v. Jones

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Aetna Insurance Company v. Jones

188 S.E.2d 180, 125 Ga. App. 471, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 1372

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 20, 1972

Docket46774

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 188 S.E.2d 180 (Aetna Insurance Company v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aetna Insurance Company v. Jones, 188 S.E.2d 180, 125 Ga. App. 471, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 1372 (Ga. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Deen, Judge.

1. Findings of fact on which the award in a workmen’s compensation case is based must be supported by testimony. Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Chambers, 84 Ga. App. 295 (66 SE2d 196). Therefore, a misstatement of significant testimony will be ground for referral back to the board of an award otherwise supported by evidence where it is possible that a proper understanding of the evidence might have caused the finder of fact to reach a different conclusion. Here, although the evidence is in conflict both as to whether the claimant was in fact suffering from a back injury, and whether if so the injury occurred during his efforts to unload a washing machine from a truck, where the claimant testified positively that this was the case and the witness, a co-employee, said he did not remember the machinery slipping or dropping but that it could have happened, the statement: "I find from the testimony of Stanfield Bowe that he remembered helping Elijah Jones unload a washing machine on the last day that Elijah Jones worked for Singleton Furniture Company, and that the washing machine did not slip while they were unloading it” is stronger than Bowe’s testimony warrants and might have *472 formed the basis for denying compensation. The judge of the superior court on appeal, therefore, did not err in recommitting the case to the board for further proceedings.

Argued January 5, 1972 Decided January 20, 1972 Rehearing denied February 10, 1972. Savell, Williams, Cox & Angel, John M. Williams, Elmer L. Nash, for appellants. J. S. Hutto & Associates, Eugene Highsmith, for appellee.

2. The evidence did not, however, demand a finding that the claimant sustained an employment connected injury, and it was error, after recommitting the case, to further order the entry of an award granting compensation. American Cas. Co. v. Harris, 96 Ga. App. 720, 723 (101 SE2d 618).

Judgment reversed in part; affirmed in part.

Jordan, P. J., and Clark, J., concur.

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

Deen, Judge.

1. Findings of fact on which the award in a workmen’s compensation case is based must be supported by testimony. Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Chambers, 84 Ga. App. 295 (66 SE2d 196). Therefore, a misstatement of significant testimony will be ground for referral back to the board of an award otherwise supported by evidence where it is possible that a proper understanding of the evidence might have caused the finder of fact to reach a different conclusion. Here, although the evidence is in conflict both as to whether the claimant was in fact suffering from a back injury, and whether if so the injury occurred during his efforts to unload a washing machine from a truck, where the claimant testified positively that this was the case and the witness, a co-employee, said he did not remember the machinery slipping or dropping but that it could have happened, the statement: "I find from the testimony of Stanfield Bowe that he remembered helping Elijah Jones unload a washing machine on the last day that Elijah Jones worked for Singleton Furniture Company, and that the washing machine did not slip while they were unloading it” is stronger than Bowe’s testimony warrants and might have *472 formed the basis for denying compensation. The judge of the superior court on appeal, therefore, did not err in recommitting the case to the board for further proceedings.

Argued January 5, 1972 Decided January 20, 1972 Rehearing denied February 10, 1972. Savell, Williams, Cox & Angel, John M. Williams, Elmer L. Nash, for appellants. J. S. Hutto & Associates, Eugene Highsmith, for appellee.

2. The evidence did not, however, demand a finding that the claimant sustained an employment connected injury, and it was error, after recommitting the case, to further order the entry of an award granting compensation. American Cas. Co. v. Harris, 96 Ga. App. 720, 723 (101 SE2d 618).

Judgment reversed in part; affirmed in part.

Jordan, P. J., and Clark, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 S.E.2d 180, 125 Ga. App. 471, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 1372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aetna-insurance-company-v-jones-gactapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack