State Highway Department v. Murphy

Court of Appeals of Georgia

State Highway Department v. Murphy

134 S.E.2d 821, 108 Ga. App. 830, 1964 Ga. App. LEXIS 1031

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 7, 1964

Docket40383

StatusPublished

This text of 134 S.E.2d 821 (State Highway Department v. Murphy) 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

State Highway Department v. Murphy, 134 S.E.2d 821, 108 Ga. App. 830, 1964 Ga. App. LEXIS 1031 (Ga. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Panneodl, Judge.

The Georgia Workmen’s Compensation Act (Code § 114-707) requires that the award of the Board of Workmen’s Compensation shall be accompanied with a statement of findings of fact upon which it is made in order that the losing party may intelligently prepare his appeal and that the cause may thereupon be intelligently reviewed. To fulfill this requirement, the findings of fact must consist of a concise but comprehensive statement of the cause and circumstances of the accident as found to be true by the Board of Workmen’s Compensation. A mere narrative of the testimony of the witnesses is not a compliance with the Act. A finding of fact that the death of the claimant “did not arise out of or within the scope'of his employment” is not such a finding of fact as would justify an award, when it stands unsupported by any other findings of fact to justify it as a conclusion. Atlanta Transit System, Inc. v. Harcourt, 94 Ga. App. 503 (95 SE2d 41); Southeastern Exp. Co. v. Edmondson, 30 Ga. App. 697 (1) (119 SE 39); American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Hardy, 36 Ga. App. 487, 490 (137 SE 113).

Upon application of the foregoing principles to the instant case, it follows that the judge of the superior court erred in setting aside the award of the single director, approved by the full board, and entering an award of his own. It is ordered that the case be recommitted to the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation in order that the board may state its findings from the evidence already heard. See, in this connection, Southeastern Exp. Co. v. Edmondson, 30 Ga. App. 697 (1), supra.

Judgment reversed with direction.

Bell, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.

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

Panneodl, Judge.

The Georgia Workmen’s Compensation Act (Code § 114-707) requires that the award of the Board of Workmen’s Compensation shall be accompanied with a statement of findings of fact upon which it is made in order that the losing party may intelligently prepare his appeal and that the cause may thereupon be intelligently reviewed. To fulfill this requirement, the findings of fact must consist of a concise but comprehensive statement of the cause and circumstances of the accident as found to be true by the Board of Workmen’s Compensation. A mere narrative of the testimony of the witnesses is not a compliance with the Act. A finding of fact that the death of the claimant “did not arise out of or within the scope'of his employment” is not such a finding of fact as would justify an award, when it stands unsupported by any other findings of fact to justify it as a conclusion. Atlanta Transit System, Inc. v. Harcourt, 94 Ga. App. 503 (95 SE2d 41); Southeastern Exp. Co. v. Edmondson, 30 Ga. App. 697 (1) (119 SE 39); American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Hardy, 36 Ga. App. 487, 490 (137 SE 113).

Upon application of the foregoing principles to the instant case, it follows that the judge of the superior court erred in setting aside the award of the single director, approved by the full board, and entering an award of his own. It is ordered that the case be recommitted to the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation in order that the board may state its findings from the evidence already heard. See, in this connection, Southeastern Exp. Co. v. Edmondson, 30 Ga. App. 697 (1), supra.

Judgment reversed with direction.

Bell, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 S.E.2d 821, 108 Ga. App. 830, 1964 Ga. App. LEXIS 1031, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-highway-department-v-murphy-gactapp-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack