Grooms v. Pacific Employers Insurance

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Grooms v. Pacific Employers Insurance

96 S.E.2d 525, 94 Ga. App. 865, 1957 Ga. App. LEXIS 946

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 8, 1957

Docket36418

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 96 S.E.2d 525 (Grooms v. Pacific Employers Insurance) 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

Grooms v. Pacific Employers Insurance, 96 S.E.2d 525, 94 Ga. App. 865, 1957 Ga. App. LEXIS 946 (Ga. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Nichols, J.

1. The testimony of the physician who first treated the claimant, with reference to the history of the claimant’s alleged injuries related a narrative of the event given him by the claimant and was hearsay and without probative value although admitted without objection, as were the statements related by this physician as to “what the claimant said he could feel” when the claimant’s feet were pricked with pins and when his legs were touched with a pitcher containing ice water. See in this connection, Augusta & Summerville R. Co. v. Randall, 79 Ga. 304 (4 S. E. 674); Poole v. East Tenn., &c. Ry. Co., 92 Ga. 337 (17 S. E. 267); Roach v. W. & A. R. Co., 93 Ga. 786 (1) (21 S. E. 67); Hodge v. American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., 57 Ga. App. 403 (195 S. E. 765); Merritt v. Continental Casualty Ins. Co., 65 Ga. App. 826 (16 S. E. 2d 612); Goodwyn v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co., 2 Ga. App. 470 (1) (58 S. E. 688); Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Marshall, 93 Ga. App. 134 (91 S. E. 2d 96).

2. In the present case where the claimant was seeking to recover for an injury to his back which allegedly arose out of and in the course of his employment, and where he was the only witness to testify that he had received an injury as contended, and his testimony as to material issues was impeached, it cannot be said that the board was without authority to find that he had failed to carry the burden of proving that he had sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The weight to be given to testimony after a witness, or a party, has been impeached is for the determination of the fact-finding tribunal. See, Swift & Co. v. Hall, 94 Ga. App. 239 (94 S. E. 2d 145), and cases cited.

*868 Therefore, the Superior Court of Glynn County did not err in affirming the award of the full board denying compensation to the claimant.

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, G. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

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

Nichols, J.

1. The testimony of the physician who first treated the claimant, with reference to the history of the claimant’s alleged injuries related a narrative of the event given him by the claimant and was hearsay and without probative value although admitted without objection, as were the statements related by this physician as to “what the claimant said he could feel” when the claimant’s feet were pricked with pins and when his legs were touched with a pitcher containing ice water. See in this connection, Augusta & Summerville R. Co. v. Randall, 79 Ga. 304 (4 S. E. 674); Poole v. East Tenn., &c. Ry. Co., 92 Ga. 337 (17 S. E. 267); Roach v. W. & A. R. Co., 93 Ga. 786 (1) (21 S. E. 67); Hodge v. American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., 57 Ga. App. 403 (195 S. E. 765); Merritt v. Continental Casualty Ins. Co., 65 Ga. App. 826 (16 S. E. 2d 612); Goodwyn v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co., 2 Ga. App. 470 (1) (58 S. E. 688); Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Marshall, 93 Ga. App. 134 (91 S. E. 2d 96).

2. In the present case where the claimant was seeking to recover for an injury to his back which allegedly arose out of and in the course of his employment, and where he was the only witness to testify that he had received an injury as contended, and his testimony as to material issues was impeached, it cannot be said that the board was without authority to find that he had failed to carry the burden of proving that he had sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The weight to be given to testimony after a witness, or a party, has been impeached is for the determination of the fact-finding tribunal. See, Swift & Co. v. Hall, 94 Ga. App. 239 (94 S. E. 2d 145), and cases cited.

*868 Therefore, the Superior Court of Glynn County did not err in affirming the award of the full board denying compensation to the claimant.

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, G. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 S.E.2d 525, 94 Ga. App. 865, 1957 Ga. App. LEXIS 946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grooms-v-pacific-employers-insurance-gactapp-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack