Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Atlanta Transit System, Inc. v. Harcourt

Atlanta Transit System, Inc. v. Harcourt

95 S.E.2d 41, 94 Ga. App. 503, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 591
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedOctober 23, 1956
Docket36348
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 95 S.E.2d 41 (Atlanta Transit System, Inc. v. Harcourt) 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
Atlanta Transit System, Inc. v. Harcourt, 95 S.E.2d 41, 94 Ga. App. 503, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 591 (Ga. Ct. App. 1956).

Opinion

Qtjilman, J.

The Workmen’s Compensation Act requires that an award of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation shall be accompanied by a statement of the board’s findings of fact. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the losing party to intelligently prepare an appeal and to enable the court to intelligently review such appeal. To fulfill this requirement the findings of fact must consist of a concise but comprehensive statement of the cause and circumstances of the accident as found to be true by the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation. A mere narrative of the testimony of the witnesses is not a compliance with the act because it is the duty of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation to weigh the evidence and decide what are the true facts. Southeastern Express Co. v. Edmondson, 30 Ga. App. 697 (1) (119 S. E. 39).

*504 Decided October 23, 1956. John M. Williams, for plaintiff in error. Guy Parker, contra.

In this case the full board adopted the deputy director’s findings of fact. The only actual findings of fact of the deputy director were: “After thorough consideration of all the evidence in this case, I find as a matter of fact that claimant has failed to carry the burden by competent evidence to show that she had an accident and injury as she alleges on October 13, 1954, which resulted in any compensable disability. That the strong probability of her trouble being due to previous injuries impresses me as being the cause of her headaches and possibly other contributing causes and her claim for compensation must be denied.”

The above quoted findings of fact do not constitute a compliance with Code § 114-707, and the trial judge did not err in re-committing the award to the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation for a hearing de novo. Southeastern Express Co. v. Edmondson, supra, (1c); Ideal Mutual Ins. Co. v. Ray, 92 Ga. App. 273 (88 S. E. 2d 428).

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Nichols, J., concur.

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

Related

Georgia Power Co. v. Georgia Public Service Commission
396 S.E.2d 562 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1990)
Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Clark
346 S.E.2d 911 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1986)
Union Carbide Corp. v. Coffman
280 S.E.2d 140 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
West Point Pepperell, Inc. v. Adams
262 S.E.2d 212 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1979)
Argonaut Insurance v. Cline
227 S.E.2d 405 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Gentile
214 S.E.2d 406 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1975)
Goddard v. Jackson-Atlantic, Inc
198 S.E.2d 699 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1973)
AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY v. Brown
198 S.E.2d 348 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1973)
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Johnson
191 S.E.2d 90 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1972)
Travelers Insurance v. Merritt
183 S.E.2d 73 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1971)
Knight v. Fulton Industries
181 S.E.2d 691 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1971)
United States Fire Insurance v. Phillips
169 S.E.2d 665 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1969)
Miller v. Travelers Insurance
155 S.E.2d 724 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)
Fireman's Fund American Insurance v. Hester
153 S.E.2d 622 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)
Lee v. General Accident Group
144 S.E.2d 457 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
Grier v. Travelers Insurance Co.
144 S.E.2d 196 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
Dudley v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
141 S.E.2d 179 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
Noles v. Aragon Mills
138 S.E.2d 598 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1964)
State Highway Department v. Murphy
134 S.E.2d 821 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1964)
Employers Liability Insurance v. Shipman
132 S.E.2d 568 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 S.E.2d 41, 94 Ga. App. 503, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlanta-transit-system-inc-v-harcourt-gactapp-1956.