Indemnity Ins. Co. v. O'Neal, 38897
| Decision Date | 06 September 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 38897,No. 3,38897,3 |
| Citation | Indemnity Ins. Co. v. O'Neal, 121 S.E.2d 689, 104 Ga.App. 305 (Ga. App. 1961) |
| Parties | INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY et al. v. Aurelia O'NEAL |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
1.The filing of a claim for compensation with the Workmen's Compensation Board within one year after an employee has suffered an accident in the course of employment and from which injuries were sustained is jurisdictional, and unless filed within that time the claim is barred.
2.The time for filing a claim for compensation will be tolled upon proof that the failure to file it within the statutory time resulted from fraud practiced by the employer upon the employee.
3.'A finding of fact by a Director or Deputy Director of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation, when supported by any evidence 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 disagreed with the conclusion reached therein.'Department of Revenue v. Graham, 102 Ga.App. 756, 117 S.E.2d 902.
Mrs. Aurelia O'Neal, employed in the meat department of Setzers, Inc., suffered an injury while moving boxes of merchandise from one place to another in the store as a part of her duties.The accident was reported to the manager of the meat department, under whom she worked, who told her that he would report the matter to he store manager and that she would be 'taken care of.'The matter was reported to the store manager, and he filled out a form of report, as his duties required him to do, and sent it in to the insurance department at the home office of the store.Group accident insurance was provided for all store employees with Pilot Life Insurance Co., and the home office passed the information about the accidental injury on to Pilot Life, which, under the provisions of the group policy, paid the hospital and doctor bills and paid accident benefits to the employee.No claim for compensation was filed with the board by the employee, the employer or anyone else in her behalf until approximately two and a half years after the happening of the accident.No compensation has been paid to the employee.In filing the belated claim she now contends that she relied upon the assurance of the manager of the meat department that she would be 'taken care of' and that the failure of the company to file a proper claim with the board in her behalf within the statutory time results from fraud practiced upon her.A hearing was held upon the claim and evidence was introduced by both employee and the employer upon the issue of whether the employee had been prevented from filing her claim by reason of fraud practiced upon her.The hearing director found against the employee upon that issue, held that the claim was barred by the statute, as contained in Code§ 114-305, and denied any award of compensation.The employee...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Snyder
...Nor does a statement by an employer or his agent to a claimant to the effect that he 'would be taken care of,' Indemnity Ins. Co. v. O'Neal, 104 Ga.App. 305, 121 S.E.2d 689, or by an insurer's physician that 'the company would take care of (you),' Welchel v. American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 54......
-
Dorsey v. U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co.
...242, 357 S.W.2d 825 (1962); Watson v. Proctor & Gamble Defense Corp., 188 Tenn. 494, 221 S.W.2d 528 (1949); Indemnity Insurance Co. v. O'Neal, 104 Ga.App. 305, 121 S.E.2d 689 (1961); Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Bishop, 108 Ga.App. 422, 133 S.E.2d 51 (1963); Harris v. Bechtel Corp., 74 Idaho ......
-
Mission Ins. Co. v. Ware
...Corp., 138 Ga.App. 45, 46, 225 S.E.2d 496; Turner v. Baggett Transp. Co., 128 Ga.App. 801(3), 198 S.E.2d 412; Indemnity Ins. Co. v. O'Neal, 104 Ga.App. 305 (3), 121 S.E.2d 689; Dept. of Revenue v. Graham, 102 Ga.App. 756(2) 117 S.E.2d 902; Hartford Acc. etc., Co. v. Davis, 73 Ga.App. 10(1),......
-
U.S. Asbestos v. Hammock
...§ 114-305. However, the board obtained jurisdiction of the appellee's case upon the filing of his claim in 1966, Indemnity Ins. Co. v. O'Neal, 104 Ga.App. 305, 121 S.E.2d 689, and the board will retain jurisdiction until there is a withdrawal, dismissal, or full compliance with an award. U.......