WORLEY BROTHERS GRANITE COMPANY, INC. v. Hall

Court of Appeals of Georgia

WORLEY BROTHERS GRANITE COMPANY, INC. v. Hall

137 S.E.2d 312, 109 Ga. App. 720, 1964 Ga. App. LEXIS 967

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 13, 1964

Docket40664

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 137 S.E.2d 312 (WORLEY BROTHERS GRANITE COMPANY, INC. v. Hall) 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

WORLEY BROTHERS GRANITE COMPANY, INC. v. Hall, 137 S.E.2d 312, 109 Ga. App. 720, 1964 Ga. App. LEXIS 967 (Ga. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Pannell, Judge.

Where, under the provisions of Code Ann. § 114-501 which require an employer to provide medical, surgical and other treatment for an employee suffering an *721 accidental injury arising out of and in the course of the employment, the employer furnishes the services of a physician who begins treatment of the employee, and the employee thereafter changes physicians and treatment without the consent of the employer or the Board of Workmen’s Compensation, the employee is not entitled to an award including physician’s fees, treatment and hospitalization costs incurred under the direction of the second physician. Hartford Acc. &c. Co. v. Sutton, 75 Ga. App. 24 (41 SE2d 915); Owensby v. Reigel Textile Corp., 104 Ga. App. 800 (123 SE2d 147). A different ruling is not required in the present case because the first physician was selected by the employee with the consent of the employer who followed a policy of permitting injured employees to select the physician of their choice. Such consent in the first instance is not a continuing consent so as to permit the employee to change physicians as he might see fit, but is merely a method by which the employer, in the first instance, furnishes to the employee the medical services required by law, and the selection of the physician by the employee is equivalent to the selection and the furnishing of the physician by the employer to the employee. . There being no emergency and no finding that the medical attention furnished was not adequate, that portion of the award which allowed to the claimant the physician’s fees, treatment and hospitalization costs incurred under the direction of the second physician was erroneous. The judgment of the superior court affirming the award is, therefore,

Decided May 13, 1964. Best, Chambers & Mabry, Richard W. Best, for plaintiff in error. Joseph B. McGinty, contra.

Reversed.

Felton, C. J., and Frankum, J., concur.

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

Pannell, Judge.

Where, under the provisions of Code Ann. § 114-501 which require an employer to provide medical, surgical and other treatment for an employee suffering an *721 accidental injury arising out of and in the course of the employment, the employer furnishes the services of a physician who begins treatment of the employee, and the employee thereafter changes physicians and treatment without the consent of the employer or the Board of Workmen’s Compensation, the employee is not entitled to an award including physician’s fees, treatment and hospitalization costs incurred under the direction of the second physician. Hartford Acc. &c. Co. v. Sutton, 75 Ga. App. 24 (41 SE2d 915); Owensby v. Reigel Textile Corp., 104 Ga. App. 800 (123 SE2d 147). A different ruling is not required in the present case because the first physician was selected by the employee with the consent of the employer who followed a policy of permitting injured employees to select the physician of their choice. Such consent in the first instance is not a continuing consent so as to permit the employee to change physicians as he might see fit, but is merely a method by which the employer, in the first instance, furnishes to the employee the medical services required by law, and the selection of the physician by the employee is equivalent to the selection and the furnishing of the physician by the employer to the employee. . There being no emergency and no finding that the medical attention furnished was not adequate, that portion of the award which allowed to the claimant the physician’s fees, treatment and hospitalization costs incurred under the direction of the second physician was erroneous. The judgment of the superior court affirming the award is, therefore,

Decided May 13, 1964. Best, Chambers & Mabry, Richard W. Best, for plaintiff in error. Joseph B. McGinty, contra.

Reversed.

Felton, C. J., and Frankum, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 S.E.2d 312, 109 Ga. App. 720, 1964 Ga. App. LEXIS 967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/worley-brothers-granite-company-inc-v-hall-gactapp-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack