Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Meadows

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Meadows

248 S.E.2d 187, 147 Ga. App. 113, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2800

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 6, 1978

Docket56202

StatusPublished

This text of 248 S.E.2d 187 (Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Meadows) 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

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Meadows, 248 S.E.2d 187, 147 Ga. App. 113, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2800 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Webb, Judge.

In this appeal from an affirmance in superior court of an award of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation, the sole issue is whether or not the claimant Texas Meadows needed medical treatment by virtue of a new injury, or if she needed treatment for an injury incurred while Hartford bore the risk. Hartford insists that there is a question of law, but its argument is based on the evidence. It is clear from the record that the word "aggravation” was used here in a situation where the claimant’s condition, from wear and tear of performing her usual duties, continued to worsen, in which case there was no new injury. Garner v. Atlantic Bldg. Systems, 142 Ga. App. 517, 518 (1) (236 SE2d 183) (1977). Accordingly, all entitlement flows from the original injury.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and McMurray, J., concur. Argued July 11, 1978 Decided September 6, 1978. Brackett, Arnall & Stephens, H. P. Arnall, H. A. Stephens, Jr., for appellants. Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, Charles L. Drew, for appellees. Texas J. Meadows, pro se.

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

Webb, Judge.

In this appeal from an affirmance in superior court of an award of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation, the sole issue is whether or not the claimant Texas Meadows needed medical treatment by virtue of a new injury, or if she needed treatment for an injury incurred while Hartford bore the risk. Hartford insists that there is a question of law, but its argument is based on the evidence. It is clear from the record that the word "aggravation” was used here in a situation where the claimant’s condition, from wear and tear of performing her usual duties, continued to worsen, in which case there was no new injury. Garner v. Atlantic Bldg. Systems, 142 Ga. App. 517, 518 (1) (236 SE2d 183) (1977). Accordingly, all entitlement flows from the original injury.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and McMurray, J., concur. Argued July 11, 1978 Decided September 6, 1978. Brackett, Arnall & Stephens, H. P. Arnall, H. A. Stephens, Jr., for appellants. Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, Charles L. Drew, for appellees. Texas J. Meadows, pro se.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 S.E.2d 187, 147 Ga. App. 113, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartford-accident-indemnity-co-v-meadows-gactapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack