Johnson v. St. Paul-Mercury Indem. Co., PAUL-MERCURY

• Decision Date: 18 September 1953
• Docket Number: No. 2,No. 34687,PAUL-MERCURY,34687,2
• Citation: 89 Ga.App. 1,78 S.E.2d 262
• Parties: JOHNSON v. ST.INDEMNITY CO. et al
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 262

78 S.E.2d 262

89 Ga.App. 1

JOHNSON v. ST. PAUL-MERCURY INDEMNITY CO. et al.

No. 34687.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

Sept. 18, 1953.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 6, 1953.

Syllabus by the Court.

The evidence is amply sufficient to sustain the award of the full board in reversing the award of the single director.

The plaintiff in error, Mrs. Maudie Mae Johnson (whom we shall call the claimant), filed application for compensation, claiming that her husband, while an employee in the Howell House, met with an injury which caused his death. It is contended that the deceased was employed as an engineer. The matter was referred to a single Director of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation, who, after hearing evidence, made an award in favor of the claimant. From that award an appeal to the full board was duly entered by the employer and the insurance carrier. The full board reversed the award of the single director. This award was appealed by the claimant to the superior court on the usual general grounds. The superior court affirmed the award of the full board. The claimant filed exceptions to the judgment of the superior court to this court for review. The only question before this court is whether there is any competent evidence to sustain the award of the full board.

We do not need to go into a detailed statement of the facts. Briefly, but we think sufficiently, the following evidence will suffice: The deceased was employed as an engineer and had been so employed for some nine months. He was seen by an employee of the employer about an hour before the time the deceased's shift expired. He was standing between two of the boilers with some wrenches in his hand. After the time of his shift had expired, the deceased was discovered lying down close to some pipes. His arm was scratched and his nose was bleeding. He was in a comatose condition. He was carried from there to Grady Memorial Hospital, and remained in an unconscious and comatose condition until the next day, and was then carried to his home. In a day or two he was returned to Grady Memorial Hospital and afterwards went back to his home. He died one month and a few days after the incident.

The evidence does not present any material conflicts. There was professional medical evidence both for the claimant and for the employer. A physician testified for the claimant, among other things, that he had spent considerable time in reviewing the records of the deceased at Grady Memorial Hospital; that the records were very complicated and most difficult to read; that he found that the patient was stricken on June 9 and died on July 21 of the same year. He then testified: that the records showed that the deceased had sclerosis of the liver; that he had true pus in his chest, which pus had been pulled out from time to time; and that penicillin and 'one thing and another' were put in; that the deceased had empyema, and that it was an infectious thing, usually...