Davis v. Houston General Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 24 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 53322,53322,3 |
| Citation | 141 Ga.App. 385,233 S.E.2d 479 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Thelma E. DAVIS v. HOUSTON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al |
Rich, Bass, Kidd & Witcher, Charles T. Bass, Casper Rich, Decatur, for appellant.
Awtrey, Parker, Risse, Mangerie & Brantley, Donald A. Mangerie, Toby B. Prodgers, Marietta, for appellees.
This appeal arises out of an award denying compensation to a claimant for workmen's compensation. Appellant Mrs. Davis, claimant below enumerates as error the denial of compensation as affirmed by the Georgia Board of Workmen's Compensation and the superior court.
As relevant to these proceedings, the facts show that Mrs. Davis was employed as a nurse's aide at the Shoreham Convalescent Center, Inc. She had been so employed for about four or five months. On December 18, 1974, after completing her normal day's work, Mrs. Davis was putting on her outer coat preparatory to going home. Apparently she had placed her right arm in the coat and reached behind to place her left arm into the coat sleeve. At that time she felt a "pop." She reported this incident to her supervisor, but experienced no immediate pain, discomfort or other physical limitation. Several weeks later Mrs. Davis experienced a second episode involving the lifting of a patient, but that episode is not a part of this litigation. Following the second episode, Mrs. Davis was required to undergo two back operations and apparently is unable to perform her duties as before. In her own testimony, Mrs. Davis admitted that she had never experienced any back pain or limitation nor had she ever experienced any back trouble of any kind prior to the "pop" which occurred on December 18, 1974. On the basis of this evidence, the administrative law judge concluded that Mrs. Davis was injured in the course of her employment but that the injury did not arise out of her employment. Mrs. Davis enumerates as error this conclusion. Held:
The appellees, insurer and employer, admit that the injury occurred in the course of employment but continue to deny that the injury arose out of employment. The terms "in the course of" and "out of" are not synonymous. Both must occur to render the case a compensable one. Maryland Cas. Co. v. Peek, 36 Ga.App. 557, 559, 137 S.E. 121. The words "arising out of" mean that there must be some causal connection between the conditions under which the employee worked and the injury which she received. The causative danger must be incidental to the character of the employment, and not independent of the relation of master and servant. The accident must be one resulting from a risk reasonably incident to the employment. Thornton v. Hartford Accident etc. Co., 198 Ga. 786, 792, 32 S.E.2d 816.
An accident "arises out of" employment when there is apparent to the rational mind, upon consideration of all the circumstances, a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is required to be performed and the resulting injury. Under this test, if the injury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cartersville City Sch. v. Johnson
..., 192 Ga. 492, 495-496, 15 S.E.2d 704 (1941); Chaparral Boats , 269 Ga. App. at 340-41, 606 S.E.2d 567 ; Davis v. Houston Gen. Ins. Co. , 141 Ga. App. 385, 386, 233 S.E.2d 479 (1977) ; Borden Foods Co. v. Dorsey , 112 Ga. App. 838, 839 (3), 146 S.E.2d 532 (1965).6 But where the Appellate Di......
-
Cox v. Fagen Inc.
...Food Distrib., Inc. v. Levenson, 383 So.2d 726 (Fla.App.1980) (bending over to pull out desk drawer); Davis v. Houston General Ins. Co., 141 Ga.App. 385, 233 S.E.2d 479 (1977) (putting on coat); Hansel & Gretel Day Care v. Indus. Comm'n, 215 Ill.App.3d 284, 158 Ill.Dec. 851, 574 N.E.2d 1244......
-
Chaparral Boats, Inc. v. Heath, A04A0981.
...the injury was not related to or caused by the peculiar nature of a condition of the employment. Davis v. Houston Gen. Ins. Co., 141 Ga.App. 385, 386-387, 233 S.E.2d 479 (1977); Murphy v. ARA Services, 164 Ga.App. 859, 861-862, 298 S.E.2d 528 (1982). Where that is the case, there is no caus......
-
A & P Transp. v. Warren
...to the character of the business, and not independent of the relation of master and servant. [Cit.]" Davis v. Houston Gen. Ins. Co., 141 Ga.App. 385, 386, 233 S.E.2d 479 (1977). "[OCGA § 34-9-1(4) ] ... provides that 'injury' and 'personal injury' under the [Workers'] Compensation Act shall......