Department of Revenue v. Graham

• Decision Date: 30 November 1960
• Docket Number: No. 38572,No. 2,38572,2
• Citation: Department of Revenue v. Graham, 117 S.E.2d 902, 102 Ga.App. 756 (Ga. App. 1960)
• Parties: DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE v. J. W. GRAHAM
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 902

117 S.E.2d 902

102 Ga.App. 756

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE v.J. W. GRAHAM.

No. 38572.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2

Nov. 30, 1960.

Syllabus by the Court

1.The motion to dismiss is without merit and is denied.

2.Findings of fact by a deputy director of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation when supported by any evidence, and in the absence of fraud, are conclusive on the courts.

(a) The opinions of expert witnesses are advisory only and fact-finding bodies are not bound thereby, but may give credence to such opinions to the extent that they see fit to do so.This especially true where such opinions are expressed with regard to matters coextensive with the entire inbestigation.

3.Where, from the tenor and wording of the award, it is clear that the deputy director misconstrued and misinterpreted the evidence and applied an incorrect principle of law, a proper disposition of the case on appeal is to remand it to the board with instructions that it be considered in the light of a proper interpretation and construction of the evidence and upon the application of correct principles of law.

J. W. Graham filed his claim for workmen's compensation against the State Department of Revenue on account of disability allegedly sustained as the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.On the trial of the case, it appeared from the evidence that the claimant was a tax examiner working out of the sales tax office at Douglas, Georgia.On February 17, 1959, he left Douglas intending to make several calls on taxpayers at Dupont, Homerville and Pearson.On this particular trip he was accompanied by his wife, who, according to the testimony, went along merely for the ride.After having stopped at Dupont and Homerville and while driving his car on the way to Pearson, the claimant had 'a funny feeling' and stopped his automobile and lay down on the back seat where he apparently 'passed out.'After regaining consciousness he was unable to continue his work.His wife drove the car home to Douglas and claimant went to bed.Upon awakening on the morning of February 18, he found that he was paralyzed in his right arm and leg and was unable to speak coherently.Dr. Dan A. Jardine was summoned and diagnosed his condition as being due to a cerebral thrombosis on the left side.He was treated at home for this condition from February 18, 1959 to May 10, 1959.During this period he seemed to improve but his speech was still bad and he was still subject to aphasia.He was not able to go back to work, however.He was sent to Atlanta by his physician in May in an effort to determine whether or not he could be further aided by neurosurgery.This determination was negative, and while he was on his way back to Douglas he suffered a second attack and was brought back to Douglas in serious condition and hospitalized.His hospitalization continued until May 26, and after further treatment at home he recovered back to the statehe was in before the second attack.No further improvement is expected.His vision is impaired; he cannot focus his eyes; he cannot read or write, and cannot talk clearly.As testified by Dr. Jardine, 'he has lost coordination of speech and sight and writing and I think that is a permanent situation.'Dr. Jardine further testified as an expert that mental strain and tension generally predisposes to this type of disease and aggravates it.The following question and answer thereto were given by the doctor on direct examination: 'Doctor, as an expert, would you have a conclusion of your own that you could express as to whether or not this strain and tension would contribute to the injury?A.Well, I think under the circumstances in which he was working at that time that he had, it did.'

The evidence showed that several tax examiners in the Douglas office had, shortly before Mr. Graham's attack, been let out, or discharged, in administrative changes accompanying the change in state administrations; that Mr. Graham, a man 59 years of age, was extremely worried and under a great deal of strain, tension and worry that he might lose his job, and he felt severe pressure on him to make a good record in order to retain his job, and, consequently had been working extremely hard.

The deputy director entered an award denying compensation.On appeal to the superior court the judge thereof reversed that award, holding that there was no basis or evidence sustaining the award of the director, and that the evidence showed that this is a compensable case under the Workmen's Compensation Act of Georgia.

Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., John S. Harrison, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff in error.

Marshall Ewing, J. S. Hutto, Douglas, for defendant in error.

CARLISLE, Judge.

1.The motion to dismissthe bill of exceptions or to affirm the case on the ground that the plaintiff in error has failed to brief the evidence is without merit.United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Bohannan, 36 Ga.App. 34(1), 135 S.E. 319;Hood v. Jackson, 81 Ga.App. 465(1), 59 S.E.2d 45.

2.A finding of fact by a director, or deputy director of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation, when supported by any evidence and in the absence of fraud, is conclusive and binding upon the courts, and the judge of the superior court does not have any authority to set aside an award based on those findings of fact merely because he disagrees with the conclusions reached therein.Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Davis, 73 Ga.App. 10, 35 S.E.2d 521;Atlantic Steel Co. v. McLarty, 74 Ga.App. 300, 39 S.E.2d 733.In this, as in all workmen's compensation cases...