Gardner v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Gardner v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company

228 S.E.2d 27, 139 Ga. App. 107, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1700

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 21, 1976

Docket51605

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 228 S.E.2d 27 (Gardner v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company) 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

Gardner v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company, 228 S.E.2d 27, 139 Ga. App. 107, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1700 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Quillian, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the superior court affirming an award of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation denying compensation. The board held that the deceased’s heart attack which caused his death did not result from his employment. The board found from all of the testimony and circumstances in the record that while the deceased’s death was in the course of his employment it did not arise out of his employment *108 because the performance of his duties did not cause or contribute to his heart attack.

Argued January 14, 1976 Decided June 21, 1976. J. V. Borsey, for appellant. Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, Glover McGhee, for appellees.

The appellant contends that certain medical evidence should not have been considered because a hypothetical question asked the doctor was not adjusted to the facts of the case. It was further contended that another doctor’s testimony should not have been admitted because it was too inconsistent to support a finding of fact.

Pretermitting the question of the admissibility of the medical testimony there was other evidence admit-ed which was sufficient to support the award. In fact, the award stated that: "From a consideration of the above expert testimony and circumstances, as above discussed, and from the facts as found in the preceding paragraphs, while Gardner clearly sustained a 'heart attack’ in the course of his employment, the weight of all the evidence, in my opinion, and I so find, favors the determination that no causal connection exists between any specific activity or exertion at work, or activities and exertions in general, and the 'heart attack’ at work, and therefore the 'heart attack’ did not arise out of the employment.”

It was not error to affirm the award of the board. Blanchard v. Savannah River Lumber Co., 40 Ga. App. 416 (149 SE 793); Thompson v. City of Atlanta, 66 Ga. App. 255 (17 SE2d 761).

Judgment affirmed.

Been, P. J., and Webb, J., concur.

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

Quillian, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the superior court affirming an award of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation denying compensation. The board held that the deceased’s heart attack which caused his death did not result from his employment. The board found from all of the testimony and circumstances in the record that while the deceased’s death was in the course of his employment it did not arise out of his employment *108 because the performance of his duties did not cause or contribute to his heart attack.

Argued January 14, 1976 Decided June 21, 1976. J. V. Borsey, for appellant. Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, Glover McGhee, for appellees.

The appellant contends that certain medical evidence should not have been considered because a hypothetical question asked the doctor was not adjusted to the facts of the case. It was further contended that another doctor’s testimony should not have been admitted because it was too inconsistent to support a finding of fact.

Pretermitting the question of the admissibility of the medical testimony there was other evidence admit-ed which was sufficient to support the award. In fact, the award stated that: "From a consideration of the above expert testimony and circumstances, as above discussed, and from the facts as found in the preceding paragraphs, while Gardner clearly sustained a 'heart attack’ in the course of his employment, the weight of all the evidence, in my opinion, and I so find, favors the determination that no causal connection exists between any specific activity or exertion at work, or activities and exertions in general, and the 'heart attack’ at work, and therefore the 'heart attack’ did not arise out of the employment.”

It was not error to affirm the award of the board. Blanchard v. Savannah River Lumber Co., 40 Ga. App. 416 (149 SE 793); Thompson v. City of Atlanta, 66 Ga. App. 255 (17 SE2d 761).

Judgment affirmed.

Been, P. J., and Webb, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 S.E.2d 27, 139 Ga. App. 107, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardner-v-employers-mutual-liability-insurance-company-gactapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack