Austin v. Gen. Accident, 26343.

Citation193 S.E. 86,56 Ga.App. 481
Decision Date30 September 1937
Docket NumberNo. 26343.,26343.
PartiesAUSTIN. v. GENERAL ACCIDENT, etc, CORPORATION et al.
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals (Georgia)

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; E. D. Thomas, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Ethel Austin, claimant, opposed by the Henry Grady Hotel Company, employer, and the General Accident, etc. Corporation, insurer. To review a judgment affirming an award of the full board of the Department of Industrial Relations reversing an award of the sole director in favor of claimant and denying, compensation, claimant brings error.

Affirmed.

Samuel L. Eplan, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

John M. Slaton and James J. Slaton, both of Atlanta, for defendants in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

GUERRY, Judge.

Upon review by the full board of the Department of Industrial Relations, the award of the sole director, in favor of the claimant for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, was reversed and compensation denied. This award was affirmed by the judge of the superior court on appeal. On a review of the award of a single director the full board acts as a fact-finding body, and may reverse the award of the single director although there be some evidence to support his findings. Code, § 114-708. This court, in reviewing an award by the full board denying compensation, must accept that evidence most favorable to the employer; and if, so viewed, it authorizes an award denying compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act (section 114-101 et seq.), it must be affirmed. So viewing the evidence in the present case, it disclosed that the claimant at the time of her injury was employed by the Henry Grady Hotel Company as an elevator operator. She had no other duties. She was allowed at least one 15-minute rest period every day and some days two, according to the number of hours she worked, and during these rest periods she was at liberty to obtain water, attend to a call of nature, or to do anything else that she pleased, in or out of the building in which she worked, theonly requirement being that she be back on the job at the end of fifteen minutes. During one of these rest periods, the claimant desiring to obtain some cold water to drink, she went into the basement of the hotel, and, in attempting to obtain some ice out of a machine used to crush ice, her hand was severely injured by some of its moving parts. Close by this machine...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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