General Acc. Fire & Life Assur. Corp. v. Teal
| Decision Date | 17 September 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 37751,No. 2,37751,2 |
| Citation | 111 S.E.2d 113,100 Ga.App. 314 |
| Parties | GENERAL ACCIDENT FIRE & LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION et al. v. Ollie TEAL |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Smith, Field, Doremus & Ringel, Charles L. Drew, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
John M. Williams, Robert M. McCartney, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. The employee claimant in this workmen's compensation case suffered a compensable injury on March 27, 1957, following which an agreement was entered into and approved by the board to pay compensation at the total disability rate from April 15, 1957, until terminated by law. The attending physician discharged the claimant on July 10, 1957, and he returned to work on July 15, worked for one day but did not return because of pain in his back, hips and legs. The employer notified the board of termination of payments and tendered final settlement receipts which the claimant refused to sign. The claimant's attorneys then requested a hearing 'on the questions of liability, disability, medical and compensation, and any other question which may be presented to the board.' The board set a hearing stating the purpose thereof 'to determine change in condition', and, after hearing evidence, the hearing director entered an award for total permanent disability, Which was affirmed by the full board and thereafter by a judge of the Superior Court of Fulton County.
The primary contention of the plaintiff in error is that, since the claimant was dismissed by his physician as able to return to work, and since he did return to work for one day, the burden is on him to show a change of condition. It is further contended that, since the claimant was receiving compensation for total disability until the employer ceased paying him, and since he still claims to be totally disabled, he has shown no change in condition which would authorize the award in this case. Under the facts herein stated, the claimant did not request a hearing under Code Ann. § 114-709 to determine a change in condition, but did request a hearing under Code Ann. § 114-706, which provides that after an agreement is signed 'and the parties thereto then disagree as to the continuance of any weekly payment under such agreement, either party may make application to the Board for a hearing in regard to the matters at issue.' The fact that the claimant attempted to work one day and was unable to continue is not such proof of his recovery and ability to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zurich Ins. Co. v. Zerfass
......854, 856, 200 S.E. 449.' General Acc. Fire & Life Assurance Corp., Ltd. v. ...v. Teal, 100 Ga.App. . Page 81. 314, 111 S.E.2d 113; ......
-
Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Webb
...105 Ga.App. 336, 124 S.E.2d 496; Clay v. Aetna Cas., etc. Co., 102 Ga.App. 498, 116 S.E.2d 686; General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Teal, 100 Ga.App. 314(1), 111 S.E.2d 113; National Surety Corp. v. Nelson, 99 Ga.App. 95(2), 107 S.E.2d 3. The full board in its award properly hel......
-
Employers Liability Assur. Corp. v. Whitlock
...ground that the compensation should have been ordered from the time of the discharge of the claimant. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Teal, 100 Ga.App. 314, 111 S.E.2d 113; Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Davis, 101 Ga.App. 849, 115 S.E.2d 482; Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Arc......
-
Pacific Emp. Ins. Co. v. Shoemake, 39278
...85 Ga.App. 163, 68 S.E.2d 170; National Surety Corp. v. Nelson, 99 Ga.App. 95, 97(2), 107 S.E.2d 718; General Accident Fire & Life Ins. Corp. v. Teal, 100 Ga.App. 314(1), 111 S.E.2d 113; Complete Auto Transit Inc. v. Davis, 101 Ga.App. 849, 115 S.E.2d 482; Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Vaugh......