Carroll v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Carroll v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

38 S.E.2d 185, 73 Ga. App. 799, 1946 Ga. App. LEXIS 414

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 7, 1946

Docket31112.

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 38 S.E.2d 185 (Carroll v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.) 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

Carroll v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 38 S.E.2d 185, 73 Ga. App. 799, 1946 Ga. App. LEXIS 414 (Ga. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

MacIntyre, J.

“ “The opinion of an expert witness is not conclusive upon a jury. Such testimony is intended to aid them in coming to a correct conclusion upon the subject; but the jury is not bound by such opinion, and can disregard it. The jury may deal with such testimony as they see fit, giving credence to it or not.' Manley v. State, 166 Ga. 563, 566 (19) (144 S. E. 170); Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Williams, 44 Ga. App. 452 (161 S. E. 853).” Ocean Accident & Guaranty Corp. v. Lane, 64 Ga. App. 149 (12 S. E. 2d, 413); Rouse v. State, 135 Ga. 227 (69 S. E. 180). “Where a diseased condition of an applicant for compensation, which existed at the time of the injury, is aggravated or caused to Tare up’ as a result of the injury, and produces a disability which otherwise might not have existed as a result of the injury, the incapacity is caused by the injury, and where the accident arises out of and in the course of the employment, compensation will not be denied upon the ground that the disability is a result of the disease.” Pruitt v. Ocean Accident &c. Corp., 48 Ga. App. 730 (3) (173 S. E. 238); Horovitz on Workmen’s Compensation, p. 285. The workmen’s compensation act does not provide for general insurance or for general accident insurance. It covers neither accidents sustained nor diseases contracted by an employee outside of his employment. Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co. v. Griggs, 190 Ga. 277, 289 (9 S. E. 2d, 84); Tweten v. North Dakota Workmen’s Comp. Bureau, 69 N. D. 369 (287 N. W. 304).

Here the testimony of the physicians was conflicting. Dr. Rufus A. Askew testified on behalf of the employer and the insurance company. Dr. M. E. Copeloff testified on behalf of the *803 claimant. The medical opinion of Dr. Askew, after an examination of the claimant, was to the effect that whatever increased portion of the claimant’s disability was caused by the accidental injury had ceased. Both Drs. Askew and Copeloff gave opinions which were diametrically in opposition; the expert opinion of Dr. Askew being that the aggravation had ceased, and the expert opinion • of Dr. Copeloff being that' the aggravation had not ceased. Dr. Fincher and Dr. Goodwin, specialists, made examinations of the claimant and stated their opinions of those phases of the case which came within the range of the particular branches of the medical profession in which they specialized, and their expert opinions of those phases of the case supported the opinion of Dr. Askew. The claimant testified in his own behalf that he was still suffering much pain, was wearing a brace, and was unable to work. Thus it appears that the testimony was conflicting, but the evidence authorized a finding by the State board of workmen’s compensation that the claimant had received only an aggravation of osteoarthritis; that since the date of such injury the aggravation had ceased; and that his present condition was not caused by the accident, as contended. Thompson v. Atlanta, 66 Ga. App. 255 (17 S. E. 2d, 761); U. S. Casualty Co. v. Matthews, 35 Ga. App. 526 (133 S. E. 875). The superior court did not err in denying the appeal of the claimant from the award of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Gardner, J., concur.

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

MacIntyre, J.

“ “The opinion of an expert witness is not conclusive upon a jury. Such testimony is intended to aid them in coming to a correct conclusion upon the subject; but the jury is not bound by such opinion, and can disregard it. The jury may deal with such testimony as they see fit, giving credence to it or not.' Manley v. State, 166 Ga. 563, 566 (19) (144 S. E. 170); Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Williams, 44 Ga. App. 452 (161 S. E. 853).” Ocean Accident & Guaranty Corp. v. Lane, 64 Ga. App. 149 (12 S. E. 2d, 413); Rouse v. State, 135 Ga. 227 (69 S. E. 180). “Where a diseased condition of an applicant for compensation, which existed at the time of the injury, is aggravated or caused to Tare up’ as a result of the injury, and produces a disability which otherwise might not have existed as a result of the injury, the incapacity is caused by the injury, and where the accident arises out of and in the course of the employment, compensation will not be denied upon the ground that the disability is a result of the disease.” Pruitt v. Ocean Accident &c. Corp., 48 Ga. App. 730 (3) (173 S. E. 238); Horovitz on Workmen’s Compensation, p. 285. The workmen’s compensation act does not provide for general insurance or for general accident insurance. It covers neither accidents sustained nor diseases contracted by an employee outside of his employment. Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co. v. Griggs, 190 Ga. 277, 289 (9 S. E. 2d, 84); Tweten v. North Dakota Workmen’s Comp. Bureau, 69 N. D. 369 (287 N. W. 304).

Here the testimony of the physicians was conflicting. Dr. Rufus A. Askew testified on behalf of the employer and the insurance company. Dr. M. E. Copeloff testified on behalf of the *803 claimant. The medical opinion of Dr. Askew, after an examination of the claimant, was to the effect that whatever increased portion of the claimant’s disability was caused by the accidental injury had ceased. Both Drs. Askew and Copeloff gave opinions which were diametrically in opposition; the expert opinion of Dr. Askew being that the aggravation had ceased, and the expert opinion • of Dr. Copeloff being that' the aggravation had not ceased. Dr. Fincher and Dr. Goodwin, specialists, made examinations of the claimant and stated their opinions of those phases of the case which came within the range of the particular branches of the medical profession in which they specialized, and their expert opinions of those phases of the case supported the opinion of Dr. Askew. The claimant testified in his own behalf that he was still suffering much pain, was wearing a brace, and was unable to work. Thus it appears that the testimony was conflicting, but the evidence authorized a finding by the State board of workmen’s compensation that the claimant had received only an aggravation of osteoarthritis; that since the date of such injury the aggravation had ceased; and that his present condition was not caused by the accident, as contended. Thompson v. Atlanta, 66 Ga. App. 255 (17 S. E. 2d, 761); U. S. Casualty Co. v. Matthews, 35 Ga. App. 526 (133 S. E. 875). The superior court did not err in denying the appeal of the claimant from the award of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Gardner, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 S.E.2d 185, 73 Ga. App. 799, 1946 Ga. App. LEXIS 414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carroll-v-hartford-accident-indemnity-co-gactapp-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack