Atlanta Transit System, Inc. v. Harcourt, 36348
| Decision Date | 23 October 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 36348,36348,1 |
| Citation | 94 Ga.App. 503,95 S.E.2d 41 |
| Parties | ATLANTA TRANSIT SYSTEM, Inc. v. Eloise W. HARCOURT |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
John M. Williams, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Guy Parker, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
The Workmen's Compensation Act, Code, § 114-101 et seq., requires that an award of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation shall be accompanied by a statement of the board's findings of fact. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the losing party to intelligently prepare an appeal and to enable the court to intelligently review such appeal. 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 State Board of Workmen's Compensation. A mere narrative of the testimony of the witnesses is not a compliance with the act because it is the duty of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation to weigh the evidence and decide what are the true facts. Southeastern Express Co. v. Edmondson, 30 Ga.App. 697(1), 119 S.E. 39.
In this case the full board adopted the deputy director's findings of fact. The only actual findings of fact of the deputy director were:
The above quoted findings of fact do not constitute a compliance with Code, § 114-707, and the trial judge did not err in re-committing the award to the State Board of Workmen's Compensation for a hearing de novo. Southeastern Express Co. v. Edmondson, supra, (1c); Ideal Mutual Ins. Co. v. Ray, 92 Ga.App. 273, 88 S.E.2d 428.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Georgia Power Co. v. Georgia Public Service Com'n
...the opportunity for an intelligent review, because it gives the specific foundations for its rulings. See Atlanta Transit System v. Harcourt, 94 Ga.App. 503, 95 S.E.2d 41 (1956), regarding awards of the State Board of Workers' Compensation; the same applies to any appealable The American As......
-
Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Cline
...Knight v. Fulton Industries, 123 Ga.App. 538, 540, 541, 181 S.E.2d 691; Southeastern Express Co. v. Atlanta Transit System v. Harcourt, 94 Ga.App 503, 95 S.E.2d 41; Ideal Mut. Ins. Co. 503, 95 S.E.2d 41; Ideal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ray, 92 Ga.App. 273, 276, 88 S.E.2d 428; Lathem v. Hartford Acc.......
-
Lee v. General Acc. Group
...import that the board must state its finding upon every material issue of fact in the case. According to Atlanta Transit System, Inc. v. Harcourt, 94 Ga.App. 503, 504, 95 S.E.2d 41, a finding is insufficient if it states merely, '[C]laimant has failed to carry the burden by competent eviden......
-
Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Clark
...which under the act is not necessary, but the findings of fact must be "sufficiently stated." See also Atlanta Transit System v. Harcourt, 94 Ga.App. 503, 95 S.E.2d 41 (1956). While the award need not recapitulate the evidence, which will be in the record and must support the findings of fa......