Wilson v. Swift & Co.

Decision Date04 November 1942
Docket Number29754.
Citation23 S.E.2d 261,68 Ga.App. 701
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals
PartiesWILSON v. SWIFT & CO.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 19, 1942.

Syllabus by the Court.

Frank S. Twitty, of Camilla, for plaintiff in error.

Hoyt H. Whelchel, of Moultrie, for defendant in error.

FELTON Judge.

This is a workmen's compensation case. The claimant Wilson was awarded compensation against Swift & Company for an injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment. After paying the compensation for a period of time, Swift & Company filed an application with the Industrial Board to stop the payment of the compensation to the claimant on account of a change in his condition. A hearing was ordered. At the hearing before the director evidence was introduced. The lay testimony, which was offered by the claimant, tended to show that there had been no change in condition, but that the claimant was still totally incapacitated. The medical testimony, offered by the employer, tended to show that any incapacity suffered by the claimant was not due to his employment, and that he was not totally incapacitated. It appeared from the testimony of the doctors who testified that they had not seen the claimant either prior to or at the original hearing at which compensation was awarded, but that the first time they had seen him was just prior to the hearing on a change in condition. The hearing director found that there had been no change in condition, and in his award said: "the evidence of Doctors Boyd and Thornton is that they did not know of his condition at the time of the last hearing, as they never saw the claimant prior to July 1941, and it necessarily follows that if the claimant has the same complaints today, and suffers from the same symptoms at this time as he did at the time of the previous award, no change in condition could be found by the undersigned director. *** From the facts adduced at the within hearing, and the law as this director construes it the employer *** has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that S. O. Wilson, claimant, has undergone a change in condition since the previous hearing. ***" The employer appealed to the superior court, who reversed the award of the Industrial Board, and in his order of reversal said: "The Industrial Board, in this opinion, declared that since Dr. Boyd and Dr. Thornton had not seen the claimant at the time of the first hearing nor...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • London Guarantee & Acc. Co. v. Bernstein
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • January 23, 1947
    ... ... Our attention is called to the ... case of Williams v. American Mutual Liability Insurance ... Co., 72 Ga.App. 205, 33 S.E.2d 451; Wilson v. Swift ... & Co., 68 Ga.App. 701, 23 S.E.2d 261; American Mutual ... Liability Insurance Co. v. Curry, 187 Ga. 342, 200 S.E ... 150. We have ... ...
  • Waters v. National Biscuit Co.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 23, 1966
    ...on an erroneous legal theory.' Miller v. Travelers Ins. Co., 111 Ga.App. 245, 248, 141 S.E.2d 223, 226. See also: Wilson v. Swift & Co., 68 Ga.App. 701, 23 S.E.2d 261; Borden Co. v. Dollar, 96 Ga.App. 489, 490, 100 S.E.2d 607; Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Simpson, 101 Ga.App. 480(1), 114 S.E.2d......
  • London Guarantee & v. Bernstein
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • January 23, 1947
    ...attention is called to the case of Williams v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co, 72 Ga.App. 205, 33 S.E.2d 451; Wilson v. Swift & Co, 68 Ga.App. 701, 23 S.E.2d 261; American Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. Curry, 187 Ga. 342, 200 S.E. 150. We have read these cases carefully in the l......
  • Barbree v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co., 39158
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • January 9, 1962
    ...v. Simpson, 101 Ga.App. 480, 114 S.E.2d 141; Baker v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 103 Ga.App. 100, 101, 118 S.E.2d 386; Wilson v. Swift & Co., 68 Ga.App. 701, 23 S.E.2d 261. The award of the single director in this case, which was adopted by the full board on appeal, appears to have been based......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT