General Motors Corp. v. Martin
| Decision Date | 04 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 43994,43994,1 |
| Citation | 119 Ga.App. 279,167 S.E.2d 211 |
| Parties | GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION v. Frank H. MARTIN |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
King & Spalding, R. William Ide, III, Charles M. Shaffer, Jr., Atlanta, for appellant.
Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, Charles L. Drew, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. An order of the superior court remanding an appeal from the Workmen's Compensation Board to the board for further findings of fact is an appealable judgment. American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Kent, 197 Ga. 733, 30 S.E.2d 599. As the Supreme Court points out, the order remanding was the equivalent of setting aside the finding and award of the board, and, further, the superior court lost jurisdiction upon the entering of its order. 1 Because the prevailing party had then lost the benefit of the judgment gained before the board his right of appeal could not be denied him. Cf. New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. McFarley, 64 Ga.App. 465(1), 13 S.E.2d 588; United States F. & G. Co. v. Brown, 68 Ga.App. 706(1), 23 S.E.2d 443.
2. Where a single director made an extensive statement of the evidence and certain findings based thereon, and upon appeal to the full board the statement of the evidence was adopted and there was substituted for the findings the following: 'We find as a matter of fact from the evidence that the claimant did not suffer an accident and injury on January 5, 1967, as contended, but that any disability which he has now is a result of the accident and injury sustained in 1958,' and upon this finding denied compensation, the findings of fact were sufficient for the making of the award. Lee v. General Acc. Group, 112 Ga.App. 197, 144 S.E.2d 457; Royal Indem. Co. v. Manley, 115 Ga.App. 259, 154 S.E.2d 278.
As was stated in Noles v. Aragon Mills, 110 Ga.App. 374, 375, 138 S.E.2d 598, 599, a finding of fact is required to be made under Code § 114-707 'in order that the losing party may intelligently prepare his appeal and that the cause may thereupon be intelligently reviewed.' Where, as here, there is a finding that the claimant did not suffer an accidental injury on the date claimed, and that any disability which claimant now suffers results from an injury suffered on a previous occasion, there should be no difficulty in preparing an intelligent appeal, or in making an intelligent review.
Thus, where the findings made require the award denying compensation, it 'does not require that the case be recommitted or remanded to the board, because the findings made eliminated the necessity of considering' any further findings. Lee v. General Acc. Group, supra. If the finding that claimant suffered no accidental injury on the date claimed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v. Baggett Transp. Co.
...and its order was final and appealable. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co. v. Kent, 197 Ga. 733, 30 S.E.2d 599; General Motors Corp. v. Martin, 119 Ga.App. 279(1), 167 S.E.2d 211; Georgia Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Bloodworth, 120 Ga.App. 313(1), 170 S.E.2d 433. Cf. Martin v. General Motors, 224 Ga. ......
-
Brown Transport Co. v. Parker, 48568
...of fact had the effect of setting aside the award, and there was no retaining of jurisdiction by the court. General Motors Corp. v. Martin, 119 Ga.App. 279, 167 S.E.2d 211. 2. The findings of fact upon which the award of no compensation was made were: 'I find as a matter of fact claimant's ......
-
Gatrell v. Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co.
...of the appeal could proceed. The order of remand was appealable to this court only for the reasons set forth in General Motors Corp. v. Martin, 119 Ga.App. 279(1), 167 S.E.2d 211. Since it is easily within the power and ability of the Board of Workmen's Compensation to be explicit as to wha......
-
Georgia Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Bloodworth, s. 44536
...the case, it was a final appealable judgment. American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Kent, 197 Ga. 733, 30 S.E.2d 599; General Motors Corp. v. Martin, 119 Ga.App. 279(1), 167 S.E.2d 211. Cf. Martin v. General Motors Corp., 224 Ga. 677, 164 S.E.2d 107. The claimant's motion to dismiss the appeal is......
-
Comparative Negligence
...v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 291 F.Supp. 368;J. Paul Smith Co. v. Tipton, 237 Ark. 486, 374 S.W.2d 176; Henry Grady Hotel Corp. v. Watts, 119 Ga.App. 279, 167 S.E.2d 205. 5 McGraw v. Wooley (Civil Action No. C-27178, May 18, 1972). 6 Heft & Heft, Comparative Negligence Manual 45. 7 Cirillo v. Ci......