Goddard v. Jackson-Atlantic, Inc

198 S.E.2d 699, 129 Ga. App. 68, 1973 Ga. App. LEXIS 880

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: May 9, 1973
• Docket: 47664
• Status: Published

Opinions

Stolz, Judge.

This is an appeal from the denial of compensation to a claimant who accidentally shot himself in the leg while at his place of work, although there are no findings of fact as to this.

After delineating the testimony in the case, the hearing examiner made the following finding of facts: "I find as a matter of fact claimant did not suffer an accident and injury within the meaning of the Act.That bringing a gun into the store was against company policy, and he had been so instructed by at least two managers under whom he was training. That there is no evidence any customer made any overt move toward him when he reached for his gun. I find further, bringing a gun into the store against company policy amounted to wilful misconduct on the part of the claimant. ” (Emphasis supplied.) Compensation was denied. The full board deleted the last sentence of the findings and substituted in lieu thereof the following: "The full board finds that the claimant’s actions under the circumstances were deliberate, reckless and wanton and amounted to wilful misconduct (see Aetna Life Insurance Company v. Carroll, 169 Ga. 333) and that such wilful misconduct was the proximate cause of the claimant’s injuries.” (Emphasis supplied.) The full board also adopted the other "findings of fact” and denied compensation.

The claimant-appellant contends that the award of the full board was not authorized by the findings of fact made. Held:

It is apparent from a proper reading of the findings of fact that the "circumstances” referred to in the full board’s substituted final sentence of the findings of fact, are those which are described in the remaining findings of fact of the hearing examiner, which were adopted by the full board and which are quoted hereinabove.

The findings of fact must be read as a whole, with a common sense construction, rather than as unrelated sentences without reference to each other. Under such a construction, it is immaterial that the full board’s substituted final sentence merely incorporates by reference the preceding findings of fact as the basis for its conclusion, rather than stating the basis for the conclusion within a single sentence, as the hearing examiner’s findings of fact did. See Gatrell v. Employers Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 226 Ga. 688 (177 SE2d 77).

"Under numerous decisions of this court, an award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board will not be disturbed where there is any evidence to support it.” Wilson v. Aragon Mills, 110 Ga. App. 392, 393 (138 SE2d 596); Ferguson v. City of Macon, 121 Ga. App. 128, 129 (173 SE2d 227); cases annotated under (Code Ann.)§ 114-710, catchwords "Conclusiveness of findings.” The full board having found that the stated circumstances amounted to wilful misconduct constituting the proximate cause of the claimant’s injuries and having entered an award which was supported by some evidence, this court will not disturb the award.

Submitted January 9, 1973 Decided May 9, 1973. Burdine & Freeman, Essley B. Burdine, for appellant. Charles L. Drew, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C. J., Hall, P. J., Eberhardt, P. J., Deen, Quillian and Clark, JJ., concur. Pannell and Evans, JJ., dissent.