Caldwell v. American Mutual Liability Insurance

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Caldwell v. American Mutual Liability Insurance

163 S.E. 247, 45 Ga. App. 82, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 167

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 27, 1932

Docket21264

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 163 S.E. 247 (Caldwell v. American Mutual Liability Insurance) 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

Caldwell v. American Mutual Liability Insurance, 163 S.E. 247, 45 Ga. App. 82, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 167 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

Where, on the hearing of a claim for compensation before one of the members of the industrial commission, it was, on motion of counsel for the claimant, ordered that the claimant be examined by a physician who was not present at the hearing, as provided in section 62 of the workmen’s compensation act, but where counsel for the employer and the insurance carrier did not waive the right to subject the physician to cross-examination, and “did not agree for the report to come in until after they had examined it, with the view of determining whether they wished to cross-examine,” and where the physician appointed afterwards examined the claimant and made a written report of the examination, which was sent to the industrial commission, and the report, which was favorable to the claim for compensation, was considered by the commissioner in making an award of compensation, and where it does not appear that counsel for the' employer and the insurance carrier had an opportunity to subject the physician to cross-examination, the exception to the award in an appeal to the full commission, upon the ground that the award was contrary to law because the physician had not been subjected to cross-examination, was meritorious. The judge of the superior court did not err in reversing the award of the full commission affirming the award of the sole commissioner, and in setting the award aside.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenldns, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

Where, on the hearing of a claim for compensation before one of the members of the industrial commission, it was, on motion of counsel for the claimant, ordered that the claimant be examined by a physician who was not present at the hearing, as provided in section 62 of the workmen’s compensation act, but where counsel for the employer and the insurance carrier did not waive the right to subject the physician to cross-examination, and “did not agree for the report to come in until after they had examined it, with the view of determining whether they wished to cross-examine,” and where the physician appointed afterwards examined the claimant and made a written report of the examination, which was sent to the industrial commission, and the report, which was favorable to the claim for compensation, was considered by the commissioner in making an award of compensation, and where it does not appear that counsel for the' employer and the insurance carrier had an opportunity to subject the physician to cross-examination, the exception to the award in an appeal to the full commission, upon the ground that the award was contrary to law because the physician had not been subjected to cross-examination, was meritorious. The judge of the superior court did not err in reversing the award of the full commission affirming the award of the sole commissioner, and in setting the award aside.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenldns, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 S.E. 247, 45 Ga. App. 82, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caldwell-v-american-mutual-liability-insurance-gactapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack