Langston v. Maryland Casualty Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Langston v. Maryland Casualty Co.

160 S.E. 823, 43 Ga. App. 854, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 586

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 29, 1931

Docket21137

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 160 S.E. 823 (Langston v. Maryland Casualty Co.) 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

Langston v. Maryland Casualty Co., 160 S.E. 823, 43 Ga. App. 854, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 586 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. There is no law or rule which requires agreements between counsel, when made in open court, to be in writing. Such is not the requirement of sections 6221 and 6278 of the Civil Code of 1910, which have reference to proceedings only in the Supreme Court and the superior court respectively.

2. An agreement between counsel, made upon the hearing of a claim for compensation before one of the industrial commissioners, that the claimant is to be examined by a physician and that the physician’s report thereon be made without an examination of the physician as a witness, is not unenforceable by reason of not being in writing. Where such an agreement was made orally upon the trial before the commissioner there is no merit in an assignment of error made by the claimant, in an appeal to the superior court excepting to the award of the commissioner denying compensation, that the agreement was not in writing.

3. Where it appears from the evidence adduced before the commissioner, and in the recitals in the findings of the commissioner, that there was an agreement to receive the physician’s report of the examination of ■ the claimant without subjecting the physician to examination as a witness, an exception in the. appeal to the superior court, that the acceptance of the report of the physician as evidence was illegal in that it was not made under oath, was made without notice to the claimant’s counsel of the time and place of hearing, and without other notice, and was not made under the rules relative to taking depositions, is without merit.

4. There being evidence adduced before the commissioner, including the report of two physicians made pursuant to an agreement as above indicated, that the claimant had suffered no disability extending beyond the period of seven days of incapacity, which, as provided in section 29 of the workmen’s compensation act is not compensable, the award of the commissioner denying compensation was authorized.

5. The superior court did not err in affirming the award.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur. Ben 0. Williford, for plaintiff. T. Elton Bralce, for defendants.

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

Stephens, J.

1. There is no law or rule which requires agreements between counsel, when made in open court, to be in writing. Such is not the requirement of sections 6221 and 6278 of the Civil Code of 1910, which have reference to proceedings only in the Supreme Court and the superior court respectively.

2. An agreement between counsel, made upon the hearing of a claim for compensation before one of the industrial commissioners, that the claimant is to be examined by a physician and that the physician’s report thereon be made without an examination of the physician as a witness, is not unenforceable by reason of not being in writing. Where such an agreement was made orally upon the trial before the commissioner there is no merit in an assignment of error made by the claimant, in an appeal to the superior court excepting to the award of the commissioner denying compensation, that the agreement was not in writing.

3. Where it appears from the evidence adduced before the commissioner, and in the recitals in the findings of the commissioner, that there was an agreement to receive the physician’s report of the examination of ■ the claimant without subjecting the physician to examination as a witness, an exception in the. appeal to the superior court, that the acceptance of the report of the physician as evidence was illegal in that it was not made under oath, was made without notice to the claimant’s counsel of the time and place of hearing, and without other notice, and was not made under the rules relative to taking depositions, is without merit.

4. There being evidence adduced before the commissioner, including the report of two physicians made pursuant to an agreement as above indicated, that the claimant had suffered no disability extending beyond the period of seven days of incapacity, which, as provided in section 29 of the workmen’s compensation act is not compensable, the award of the commissioner denying compensation was authorized.

5. The superior court did not err in affirming the award.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur. Ben 0. Williford, for plaintiff. T. Elton Bralce, for defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 S.E. 823, 43 Ga. App. 854, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/langston-v-maryland-casualty-co-gactapp-1931.

Opinion

5. The superior court did not err in affirming the award.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack