General Motors Corp., Fisher Body Division v. Bowman
| Decision Date | 11 February 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 39900,39900,3 |
| Parties | GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, FISHER BODY DIVISION v. R. S. BOWMAN |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The State Board of Workmen's Compensation has authority under Code Ann. § 114-709 (change of condition) to compensate for a specific injury to a leg (Code Ann. § 114-406) where the injury did not develop or become known until more than a year had lapsed from the date of the accident where, following the same accident, a previous award had been duly entered for an injury to the back under Code Ann. § 114-404. There may be change in condition from a specific (Code Ann. § 114-406) to a general (Code Ann. § 114- 404) disability or vice versa where the later injury is associated with the former.
2. The findings of fact were supported by the evidence.
Claimant was injured on March 20, 1959. On May 8, 1959, the claimant and the employer entered into an agreement providing for compensation to be paid for disabilty resulting from an 'acute strain in lumber area.' On November 10, 1960, the claimant filed a request for hearing to determine his claim of a change in condition. A hearing was held upon this request before the deputy director who, on April 27, 1961, rendered an award granting the claimant compensation for 25% loss of use of the left leg. The employer appealed to the full board of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation. The board upon this appeal held that there was ample evidence to support the findings of the deputy director and made those findings its findings of fact and affirmed the award. The findings upon which the award was made recited that the claimant had initially sustained the back injury which necessitated an operation and that immediately following the operation he complained of pain in his left leg; that the present disability was confined primarily to the left leg; that two physicians found muscle atrophy and weakness in the left leg; that they were both of the opinion that the disability in his left leg 'was associated with his back condition'; and that one physician rated the disability at 15%; the other at 30%. The award made was for 25% and was within the range of the rated disability.
The employer appealed the decision of the full board to the Superior Court of Fulton County which remanded the case to the State Board of Workmen's Compensation with directions that the board make findings of fact which would determine the issue of whether or not there had been a change in the condition of the claimant and that the board enter an award consistent with the findings of fact. Thereafter the board issued another award which again adopted the findings of fact made by the deputy director at the initial hearing and contained the further finding that the claimant had undergone a change in condition and 'is now suffering a residual permanent partial disability of 25% loss of use of the left leg.' This award was appealed to the Superior Court of Fulton County which affirmed the award, to which judgment the defendant employer excepted.
King & Spalding, Charles H. Kirbo, William H. Izlar, Jr., Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Kelley Quillian, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
1. The principal issue in this case is whether a claimant who has received workmen's compensation for a back strain can make claim and be awarded compensation for a change in condition based on an injury to his leg which is found to stem from his initial back injury after more than one year has passed since the initial injury which precipitated his back disability.
The employer contends that since there is a clear distinction between the type of injury for which compensation is payable under Code Ann. § 114-404 () and that awardable under Code Ann. § 114-406 (), with distinct criteria for determining each, there can be no later award under the guise of a change in condition for the loss of use or loss of use of a part of a specific member of the body where the initial award was for general loss of earning power.
While the specific question has not been ruled upon by our appellate courts, a similar situation seems to have appeared in Automatic Sprinkler Corporation of America v. Rucker, 87 Ga.App. 375, 73 S.E.2d 609. In Rucker, more than a year after the initial injury the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waters v. National Biscuit Co.
...the claimant's total compensation does not exceed the limit prescribed by Code Ann. § 114-404.' General Motors Corp., Fisher Body Division v. Bowman, 107 Ga.App. 335, 339, 130 S.E.2d 163, 165; Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of America v. Rucker, 87 Ga.App. 375, 381, 73 S.E.2d 609; United States ......
-
General Motors Corp. v. Hargis
...663. Moreover, the Act, being remedial must be interpreted liberally in favor of those claiming compensation. General Motors Corp. v. Bowman, 107 Ga.App. 335, 338, 130 S.E.2d 163. This problem is a legislative one and in the absence of a clear legislative intent, we do not feel at liberty t......
-
Subsequent Injury Trust Fund v. Lumley Drywall
...780. It must be construed liberally in favor of the claimant in order to accomplish its beneficent purposes (General Motors Corp. v. Bowman, 107 Ga.App. 335, 337, 130 S.E.2d 163), so as to provide a claimant a remedy under any provision thereof which does not strictly and reasonably prohibi......
-
Turner v. Travelers Ins. Co.
...injuries, or that there was no permanent disability to a member other than that described in the form. See General Motors Corp., etc. v. Bowman, 107 Ga.App. 335(1), 130 S.E.2d 163. 5. The appellant enumerates error on the judgment of the Judge of the Superior Court of Walker County on the g......