Hoard v. Phoenix Assurance

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hoard v. Phoenix Assurance

160 S.E.2d 621, 117 Ga. App. 383, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1093

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 8, 1968

Docket43468

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 160 S.E.2d 621 (Hoard v. Phoenix Assurance) 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

Hoard v. Phoenix Assurance, 160 S.E.2d 621, 117 Ga. App. 383, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1093 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Deen, Judge.

In this workmen’s compensation case the evidence is undisputed that the claimant suffered a dizzy spell on February 12 and was sent home. She later returned to work for [384]*384a few days, was put on sick leave, worked briefly for another employer, and was operated on in May 1966 for a ruptured intervertebral disc. Her statement that she told her supervisor she had pain in her back is contradicted by him, and the contradiction supported by the deposition of a doctor who said her first complaints were of abdominal pain and it was only during post-operative care in May that she associated the onset of pain with her work as a poultry processer. The evidence as a whole greatly preponderates toward the conclusion that the claimant told her employers she was “sick” but gave them no notice of injury, and there is little evidence to support the conclusion that the ruptured disc discovered in May was in fact the result of injury arising out of her employment.

Argued February 7, 1968 Decided March 8, 1968. Ernest Bostick, for appellant. Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, James B. Hiers, Jr., for appellees.

“Obviously, the notice required [by Code § 114-303] is notice of an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment, and mere notice that an employee is suffering an injury from an accident does not meet the requirement of the statute.” Royal Indem. Co. v. Coulter, 213 Ga. 277, 279 (98 SE2d 899).

The denial of compensation by the hearing director was affirmed by the full Board of Workmen’s Compensation and by the judge of the superior court on appeal. The latter judgment is

Affirmed.

Jordan, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.

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

Deen, Judge.

In this workmen’s compensation case the evidence is undisputed that the claimant suffered a dizzy spell on February 12 and was sent home. She later returned to work for [384]*384a few days, was put on sick leave, worked briefly for another employer, and was operated on in May 1966 for a ruptured intervertebral disc. Her statement that she told her supervisor she had pain in her back is contradicted by him, and the contradiction supported by the deposition of a doctor who said her first complaints were of abdominal pain and it was only during post-operative care in May that she associated the onset of pain with her work as a poultry processer. The evidence as a whole greatly preponderates toward the conclusion that the claimant told her employers she was “sick” but gave them no notice of injury, and there is little evidence to support the conclusion that the ruptured disc discovered in May was in fact the result of injury arising out of her employment.

Argued February 7, 1968 Decided March 8, 1968. Ernest Bostick, for appellant. Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, James B. Hiers, Jr., for appellees.

“Obviously, the notice required [by Code § 114-303] is notice of an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment, and mere notice that an employee is suffering an injury from an accident does not meet the requirement of the statute.” Royal Indem. Co. v. Coulter, 213 Ga. 277, 279 (98 SE2d 899).

The denial of compensation by the hearing director was affirmed by the full Board of Workmen’s Compensation and by the judge of the superior court on appeal. The latter judgment is

Affirmed.

Jordan, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 S.E.2d 621, 117 Ga. App. 383, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1093, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoard-v-phoenix-assurance-gactapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack