Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/American Mutual Liability Insurance v. Grimes

American Mutual Liability Insurance v. Grimes

109 S.E.2d 837, 100 Ga. App. 51, 1959 Ga. App. LEXIS 533
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJuly 6, 1959
Docket37595
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 109 S.E.2d 837 (American Mutual Liability Insurance v. Grimes) 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
American Mutual Liability Insurance v. Grimes, 109 S.E.2d 837, 100 Ga. App. 51, 1959 Ga. App. LEXIS 533 (Ga. Ct. App. 1959).

Opinions

Quillian, Judge.

In this case the deputy director entered an award in favor of the employer. She based her award upon the conclusion that the claimant had not carried the burden of proving a change in his condition since he returned to work after a period of disability caused by a compensable injury. Three physicians testified as expert witnesses in the case. [52]*52The deputy director held that the testimony of two of the witnesses could not be considered by her since they had not examined the claimant at or. before the original claim for compensation was filed. Both witnesses answered various hypothetical questions, some of which were material in establishing the fact of the alleged change in the claimant’s condition. On an appeal of the case Judge Shaw of Fulton Superior Court reversed her decision.

Decided July 6, 1959 Rehearing denied July 21, 1959. Greene, Neely, Buckley & DeRieux, Burt DeRieux, for plaintiffs in error. L. D. Bums, Jr., contra.

Judge Shaw wrote an opinion: “This is a change of condition. The board made an erroneous finding of law in holding that only the testimony of Dr. McLendon could be considered since the other two named doctors had not examined claimant at or before the original claim was filed. The case of Phinese v. Ocean Accident &c. Corp., 81 Ga. App. 394 (58 S. E. 2d 921) does not apply since there was evidence by the claimant himself as to a change in condition. The board should have considered, along with the other evidence, the testimony of Dr. Trimble and Dr. Bickers since this testimony is admissible, See Wilson v. Swift & Co., 68 Ga. App. 701 (23 S. E. 2d 261). The weight and credit to be given the testimony of these doctors is a matter which addresses itself to the sole discretion of the board.”

The opinion expresses the views of this court.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Brokenbrough v. Chrysler Corp.
460 A.2d 551 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1983)
Van Horn v. Hillcrest Foods, Inc.
392 A.2d 52 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1978)
Ryan v. Grinnell Corporation
362 A.2d 127 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1976)
Chattahoochee Camp School v. Cole
161 S.E.2d 78 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1968)
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Dutton
158 S.E.2d 272 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)
Turner v. Travelers Insurance Co.
152 S.E.2d 783 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1966)
Federal Insurance Co. v. Spooner
129 S.E.2d 214 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1962)
American Mutual Liability Insurance v. Grimes
109 S.E.2d 837 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
109 S.E.2d 837, 100 Ga. App. 51, 1959 Ga. App. LEXIS 533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-mutual-liability-insurance-v-grimes-gactapp-1959.