Edwards v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Edwards v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

125 S.E.2d 736, 105 Ga. App. 691, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 1002

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 3, 1962

Docket39383

StatusPublished

This text of 125 S.E.2d 736 (Edwards 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

Edwards v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 125 S.E.2d 736, 105 Ga. App. 691, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 1002 (Ga. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Carlisle, Presiding Judge.

“Findings of fact of a single director of the department of industrial relations, where approved on review by the full department, stand in this court on the same footing as the verdict of a jury; and where supported by some competent evidence, they will not be disturbed. Maryland Casualty Co. v. England, 160 Ga. 810 (129 SE 75); London Guarantee &c. Co. v. Shockley, 31 Ga. App. 762 (122 SE 99); Jackson v. Lumberman’s Mutual Casualty Co., 33 Ga. App. 35 (125 SE 515); Burdett v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. 40 Ga. App. 92 (149 SE 55).” U. S. Fidelity &c. Co. v. Maddox, [692]*69252 Ga. App. 416, 418 (1) (183 SE 570). While the evidence in this case was in conflict in that the claimant contended and testified that he was not able to work at the time of the hearing held on February 1, 1961, yet two expert medical witnesses testified that they pronounced him able to return to work on or about September 17, 1960, and under the foregoing rule we cannot say that the award allowing compensation from July 19, 1960, through September 17, 1960, was unauthorized.

Decided April 3, 1962. John D. Edge, for plaintiff in error. Matthews, Maddox, Walton Sc, Smith, Oscar M. Smith, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Eberhardt and Bussell, JJ., concur.

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

Carlisle, Presiding Judge.

“Findings of fact of a single director of the department of industrial relations, where approved on review by the full department, stand in this court on the same footing as the verdict of a jury; and where supported by some competent evidence, they will not be disturbed. Maryland Casualty Co. v. England, 160 Ga. 810 (129 SE 75); London Guarantee &c. Co. v. Shockley, 31 Ga. App. 762 (122 SE 99); Jackson v. Lumberman’s Mutual Casualty Co., 33 Ga. App. 35 (125 SE 515); Burdett v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. 40 Ga. App. 92 (149 SE 55).” U. S. Fidelity &c. Co. v. Maddox, [692]*69252 Ga. App. 416, 418 (1) (183 SE 570). While the evidence in this case was in conflict in that the claimant contended and testified that he was not able to work at the time of the hearing held on February 1, 1961, yet two expert medical witnesses testified that they pronounced him able to return to work on or about September 17, 1960, and under the foregoing rule we cannot say that the award allowing compensation from July 19, 1960, through September 17, 1960, was unauthorized.

Decided April 3, 1962. John D. Edge, for plaintiff in error. Matthews, Maddox, Walton Sc, Smith, Oscar M. Smith, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Eberhardt and Bussell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 S.E.2d 736, 105 Ga. App. 691, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 1002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-hartford-accident-indemnity-co-gactapp-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack