ROYAL GLOBE INDEMNITY COMPANY v. Thompson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

ROYAL GLOBE INDEMNITY COMPANY v. Thompson

180 S.E.2d 576, 123 Ga. App. 268, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 1188

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 22, 1971

Docket45808

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 180 S.E.2d 576 (ROYAL GLOBE INDEMNITY COMPANY v. Thompson) 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

ROYAL GLOBE INDEMNITY COMPANY v. Thompson, 180 S.E.2d 576, 123 Ga. App. 268, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 1188 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Jordan, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from an order affirming an award of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation in favor of the claimant. Held:

1. The record is clear that the deposition of a physician was taken with notice, inasmuch as a representative (though not an attorney) of the employer was present at the taking, and notice to the employer would serve as notice to the insurer. See Code § 114-101, as amended (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1163, 1164). Appellant contends that such notice was not seasonable or legal. To the extent that Code § 114-706, as amended, Ga. L. 1969, p. 205, requires the taking of a deposition to conform to the procedural rules in effect in civil cases in the superior court, and therefore to conform to §26 of the CPA (Code Ann. §81A-126), the fact that it was taken within 20 days after the filing of the claim, with notice to the adverse party but without obtaining leave of the board, does not render the deposition inadmissible upon objection at the hearing held by the board. An error or irregularity in the taking of a deposition which might have been obviated, removed, or cured is "waived unless seasonable objection thereto is made at the taking of the deposition.” Section 32 (c) (2), CPA (Code Ann. §81A-132 (c) (2)). (Emphasis supplied).

*269 Argued January 7, 1971 — Decided January 22, 1971— Rehearing denied February 5, 1971. Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, James B. Hiers, Jr., for appellants. Alford Wall, for appellee.

2. Under the "any evidence” rule the evidence supports the award, as affirmed on appeal to the superior court, and no reversible error appears for any reason argued and insisted upon.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian and Evans, JJ., concur.

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

Jordan, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from an order affirming an award of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation in favor of the claimant. Held:

1. The record is clear that the deposition of a physician was taken with notice, inasmuch as a representative (though not an attorney) of the employer was present at the taking, and notice to the employer would serve as notice to the insurer. See Code § 114-101, as amended (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1163, 1164). Appellant contends that such notice was not seasonable or legal. To the extent that Code § 114-706, as amended, Ga. L. 1969, p. 205, requires the taking of a deposition to conform to the procedural rules in effect in civil cases in the superior court, and therefore to conform to §26 of the CPA (Code Ann. §81A-126), the fact that it was taken within 20 days after the filing of the claim, with notice to the adverse party but without obtaining leave of the board, does not render the deposition inadmissible upon objection at the hearing held by the board. An error or irregularity in the taking of a deposition which might have been obviated, removed, or cured is "waived unless seasonable objection thereto is made at the taking of the deposition.” Section 32 (c) (2), CPA (Code Ann. §81A-132 (c) (2)). (Emphasis supplied).

*269 Argued January 7, 1971 — Decided January 22, 1971— Rehearing denied February 5, 1971. Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, James B. Hiers, Jr., for appellants. Alford Wall, for appellee.

2. Under the "any evidence” rule the evidence supports the award, as affirmed on appeal to the superior court, and no reversible error appears for any reason argued and insisted upon.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian and Evans, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 S.E.2d 576, 123 Ga. App. 268, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 1188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/royal-globe-indemnity-company-v-thompson-gactapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack