Dollar v. Hunt's Supermarket

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Dollar v. Hunt's Supermarket

207 S.E.2d 208, 132 Ga. App. 5, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1581

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 23, 1974

Docket49266

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 207 S.E.2d 208 (Dollar v. Hunt's Supermarket) 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

Dollar v. Hunt's Supermarket, 207 S.E.2d 208, 132 Ga. App. 5, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1581 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Stolz, Judge.

In the absence of fraud, an award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board will not be disturbed where there is any competent evidence to support it. Pearce v. Pacific Employers Ins. Group, 131 Ga. App. 792 and cits.

Submitted May 7, 1974 Decided May 23, 1974. Dunaway & Perry, Marson G. Dunaway, Jr., for appellant. Henry A. Stewart, Sr., for appellee.

The present award of less compensation and medical expenses than the claimant contends would be authorized, is supported by evidence that the type of injury the claimant sustained is generally disabling for a maximum of only approximately two weeks; that the claimant’s not resuming his job at the end of the two-week period was caused by either his own failure to return to work, his inability to work because of pre-existing injuries not related to the nasal injury which is the subject of this claim, or the employer’s refusal to permit him to return to work on account of matters unconnected with his work-related injury; and that the balance of the medical expenses contended to be recoverable were not incurred as a result of the presently claimed injury.

Therefore, the superior court did not err in its judgment affirming the board’s award.

Judgment affirmed.

Eberhardt, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.

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

Stolz, Judge.

In the absence of fraud, an award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board will not be disturbed where there is any competent evidence to support it. Pearce v. Pacific Employers Ins. Group, 131 Ga. App. 792 and cits.

Submitted May 7, 1974 Decided May 23, 1974. Dunaway & Perry, Marson G. Dunaway, Jr., for appellant. Henry A. Stewart, Sr., for appellee.

The present award of less compensation and medical expenses than the claimant contends would be authorized, is supported by evidence that the type of injury the claimant sustained is generally disabling for a maximum of only approximately two weeks; that the claimant’s not resuming his job at the end of the two-week period was caused by either his own failure to return to work, his inability to work because of pre-existing injuries not related to the nasal injury which is the subject of this claim, or the employer’s refusal to permit him to return to work on account of matters unconnected with his work-related injury; and that the balance of the medical expenses contended to be recoverable were not incurred as a result of the presently claimed injury.

Therefore, the superior court did not err in its judgment affirming the board’s award.

Judgment affirmed.

Eberhardt, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 S.E.2d 208, 132 Ga. App. 5, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dollar-v-hunts-supermarket-gactapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack