Distribution Concepts Co. v. Hunt, A96A0296
| Decision Date | 16 May 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. A96A0296,A96A0296 |
| Citation | 221 Ga.App. 449,471 S.E.2d 539 |
| Parties | DISTRIBUTION CONCEPTS COMPANY et al. v. HUNT. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Drew, Eckl & Farnham, John G. Blackmon, Jr., Marion M. Handley, Atlanta, for appellants.
Ray C. Smith, Richmond Hill, for appellee.
Anthony Hunt filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging that on February 18, 1994, he injured his back while employed by Distribution Concepts Company ("Distribution Concepts"). Hunt claimed that the injury occurred when he was unloading a 125-pound bag of tea from a trailer. The administrative law judge ("ALJ") denied Hunt's claim, and the Appellate Division adopted the ALJ's award. On appeal, the superior court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the Appellate Division's award, but remanded the case to the ALJ for consideration of newly discovered evidence. We granted Distribution Concepts' application for discretionary appeal and, for reasons which follow, reverse the decision of the superior court.
At the hearing before the ALJ, Hunt testified that after the accident, he told a co-worker, Pat McBride, and his supervisor, Bill Glisson, that he injured his back. Although McBride did not testify at the hearing, Glisson denied that Hunt informed him of the accident. Distribution Concepts' warehouse manager, James Polcyn, testified that he attended Hunt's birthday party the evening of the accident and went fishing with him for approximately four hours the next morning. Polcyn stated that Hunt did not mention the injury to him on either occasion. He further testified that Hunt did not appear injured and that they "ran up and down the banks and over the hills and down to the fishing stream." Based on the foregoing, the ALJ found Hunt's testimony incredible and denied the claim. Regarding Hunt's testimony that he told McBride of the accident, the ALJ found "co-worker McBride was not brought in to give testimony, so the alleged injury was not corroborated by him." The superior court remanded the case to the ALJ to consider McBride's testimony based upon its finding that "the Administrative Law Judge placed upon the claimant a burden which is not required by law: the burden to corroborate his testimony."
1. We note initially that the record does not support the superior court's finding that the ALJ placed a burden on Hunt to corroborate his testimony. A plain reading of the ALJ's award shows that he found Hunt's testimony incredible. In considering whether McBride corroborated Hunt's testimony, the ALJ was only determining whether Hunt's testimony was strengthened by such additional testimony. See Langford v. Royal Indem. Co., 208 Ga.App. 128, 130-132(3)(c), 430 S.E.2d 98 (1993). Because the ALJ, as the finder of fact, was responsible for resolving discrepancies in the evidence and determining witness credibility, he did not err in considering whether Hunt's testimony was strengthened by other evidence. See Young v. Columbus Consolidated Govt., 263 Ga. 172(1), 430 S.E.2d 7 (1993).
2. Distribution Concepts asserts that the trial court erred in remanding the case to the ALJ for consideration of McBride's testimony, which Hunt claimed was newly discovered evidence.
In a motion to the Appellate Division, Hunt claimed that at the time of his ALJ hearing he could not locate McBride to testify, and that ten days after the ALJ issued his award, he saw McBride in a store parking lot. In an affidavit supporting Hunt's motion, McBride stated that after the accident, Hunt told him and Glisson that he hurt his back. The Appellate Division did not remand the case.
The Appellate Division has discretion as to whether it remands a case for consideration of new or additional evidence, and that discretion will not be disturbed unless it is manifestly abused. Hon Co. v. Dobbs, 165 Ga.App. 654, 655, 302 S.E.2d 365 (1983). In considering this issue, the Appellate Division " Old Dominion Freight Line v. Anthony, 216 Ga.App....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wesleyan College v. Weber, No. A99A0419
...which there was evidence at trial. Baumbach v. Dickens, 213 Ga. 745, 746-747(1), 101 S.E.2d 702 (1958); Distrib. Concepts Co. v. Hunt, 221 Ga.App. 449, 451(2), 471 S.E.2d 539 (1996). Johansen's testimony is cumulative of Wesleyan's other expert witness, Hartel, and even Weber's own experts ......
-
Textile Coating, Ltd. v. Ramirez
...the Board's action in applying the lesser legal standard to the ALJ's factual findings. See also Distribution Concepts Co. v. Hunt, 221 Ga.App. 449, 450(2), 471 S.E.2d 539 (1996), noting the Board's discretion in determining whether to remand a case to the ALJ for additional factual determi......
-
Rheem Mfg. Co. v. Jackson
...the superior court erred in not remanding it to the appellate division for hearing further evidence. See Distrib. Concepts Co. v. Hunt, 221 Ga.App. 449, 451, 471 S.E.2d 539 (1996) (where award is unsupported by competent evidence in the record, superior court could remand to appellate divis......
-
MOFFITT CONST., INC. v. Barnes, No. A03A1036.
...Barnes. From that order, Moffitt filed its discretionary application. Here, citing several cases including Distribution Concepts Co. v. Hunt, 221 Ga.App. 449, 471 S.E.2d 539 (1996), Moffitt argues that the superior court erred as a matter of law in remanding the case to the appellate divisi......
-
Workers' Compensation - H. Michael Bagley, Daniel C. Kniffen, John G. Blackmon, Jr., and Phillip Comer Griffeth
...(1996). 196. Id. at 733, 470 S.E.2d at 312. 197. Id. 198. Id. 199. Id. at 734, 470 S.E.2d at 312. 200. Id., 470 S.E.2d at 312-13. 201. 221 Ga. App. 449, 471 S.E.2d 539 (1996). 202. Id. at 451, 471 S.E.2d at 541. 203. Id. at 449-50, 471 S.E.2d at 540-41. 204. Id. at 449, 471 S.E.2d at 540. 2......