Bolton v. Columbia Cas. Co.

• Decision Date: 19 November 1925
• Docket Number: 16508.
• Parties: BOLTON v. COLUMBIA CASUALTY CO.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

130 S.E. 535

34 Ga.App. 658

BOLTON v. COLUMBIA CASUALTY CO.

No. 16508.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Second Division

November 19, 1925

Syllabus by the Court.

In all claims for compensation for hernia resulting from injury by accident, arising out of and in the course of the employment it must be definitely proved, among other things, that there was an injury resulting in the hernia. The statements of the employee in this case, tending to show that he had suffered an injury, and that the injury resulted in hernia, having been made some time after the alleged injury, and being merely narrative and descriptive of something which had fully taken place and become a thing of the past, had no probative value in establishing the fact that he was injured, and the Industrial Commission properly held that such statements or declarations were hearsay and no part of the res gestæ. There being no other evidence to prove that the employee was injured, it did not appear that his hernia, though proven to exist, was the result of an injury. The Industrial Commission did not err in refusing the claim, and the superior court properly denied the appeal.

Error from Superior Court, Chatham County; P. W. Meldrim, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Blanche Bolton claimant, for death of her son Earl C. Bolton, opposed by the I. Epstein & Bro. Company, the employer, and the Columbia Casualty Company, the insurer. An order refusing compensation was affirmed by the superior court and claimant brings error. Affirmed.

H. P Cobb, of Savannah, for plaintiff in error.

Ralph G. Sims, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

BELL J. (after stating the facts as above).

In Western & Atlantic Railroad Co. v. Beason, 112 Ga. 553 (2), 37 S.E. 863, it was held that the real test as to whether declarations are admissible as a part of the res gestæ is, Were they "a part of the occurrence to which they relate, or were they a mere narrative concerning something which had fully taken place and had therefore become a thing of the past?" In Atlanta, K. & N. R Co. v. Gardner, 122 Ga. 82 (11), 49 S.E. 818, the Supreme Court held that on the trial of an action for damages for personal injuries, "complaints made by the plaintiff to her attending physician of pains in designated portions of her body were not admissible in evidence in her favor, unless made under such circumstances as to be equivalent to spontaneous and involuntary exclamations or outcries, groans, convulsive movements, and other physical manifestations of present pain and suffering." (Italics ours.) See, also, Southern Ry. Co. v. Brown, 126 Ga. 1 (2), 54 S.E. 911; Georgia Ry. & Electric Co. v. Gilleland, 133 Ga. 621 (2), 66 S.E. 944. In the instant case the testimony of physicians as to the employee's condition and to the fact that he was suffering from hernia, and that it was of recent origin, was not hearsay, and we do not understand that the commission so denominated it. What the...