Lee v. General Acc. Group

• Decision Date: 08 September 1965
• Docket Number: No. 3,No. 41398,41398,3
• Citation: 112 Ga.App. 197,144 S.E.2d 457
• Parties: E. C. LEE, Jr. v. GENERAL ACCIDENT GROUP et al
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 457

144 S.E.2d 457

112 Ga.App. 197

E. C. LEE, Jr. v. GENERAL ACCIDENT GROUP et al.

No. 41398.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 3.

Sept. 8, 1965.

Syllabus by the Court

1. (a) Code § 114-707 requires that an award of the Board of Workmen's Compensation be accompanied by a concise but comprehensive statement of findings of fact respecting the cause and circumstances of the accident and every other material issue in the case.

(b) If the statement of the board's findings of fact is subject to two constructions, one which would render the award invalid and another which with equal reason would render the award valid, the statement should be so construed as to render the award valid.

(c) It is not necessary to recommit a case to the board because of its failure to state findings of fact on issues as to which the facts disclosed by the record are undisputed.

2. Findings of the board are binding on all courts if there is any evidence in the record to support them.

This is an appeal from an award of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation. The claim originated in an alleged injury to claimant's back when he stooped over to remove a seat from an automobile and was immediately afterwards unable to reassume an upright standing position without extreme temporary pain. The findings of the board read in part as follows: 'The claimant in this case had made complaints of back pain back to sometime in 1960 * * * He strained himself while in the course of his employment. However * * * the claimant has not carried the burden of proof to show an accidental injury which precipitated the fusion which was performed on his back * * * The deposition of Dr. Robert F. Mabon refutes the claim of the claimant in this case, that he had no pathological problem as a result of any accidental injury * * * In fact, the claimant was operated on for an exploratory operation with a tentative diagnosis of an arachnoid cyst and the ultimate fusion performed on the spine of the claimant was to remove a weakness in his back, that had been existing for sometime * * *' On the basis of these findings of fact the board made an award denying compensation to claimant.

Jack K. Bohler, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Smith, Ringel, Martin & Lowe, Charles L. Drew, Atlanta, for defendants in error.

BELL, Presiding Judge.

1. The claimant contends that the board failed to make a statement of findings of fact sufficient to support the award, in that the board omitted to make a definite finding upon the question whether the claimant received an injury which aggravated a pre-existing condition so as to constitute a disability within the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

'The Georgia Workmen's Compensation Act (Code § 114-707) requires that an award of the Board of Workmen's Compensation shall be accompanied by a statement of findings of fact upo which it is made in order that the losing party may intelligently prepare his appeal and that the cause may thereupon be intelligently reviewed. To fulfill this requirement, the findings of fact must consist of a concise but comprehensive statement of the cause and circumstances of the accident as found to be true by the Board of Workmen's Compensation and similar findings of fact upon any material issue in the case.' Noles v. Aragon Mills et al., 110 Ga.App. 374, 375, 138 S.E.2d 598, 599. See also: Pacific Employers Inc. Co. v. West, 213 Ga. 296, 298, 99 S.E.2d 89; American Mutual, etc., Ins. Co. v. Hardy, 36 Ga.App. 487, 490, 137 S.E. 113; Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. of New York v. Dallas, 39 Ga.App. 38, 39(1), 146 S.E. 37; Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Chambers, 84 Ga.App. 295, 296, 66 S.E.2d 196; Hodges v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 105 Ga.App. 273, 124 S.E.2d 435; Dudley v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 111 Ga.App. 214, 215-216, 141 S.E.2d 179. The Noles and Chambers cases, especially, import that the board must state its finding upon every material issue of fact in the case.

According to Atlanta Transit System, Inc. v. Harcourt, 94 Ga.App. 503, 504, 95 S.E.2d 41, a finding is insufficient if it states merely, '[C]laimant has failed to carry the burden by competent evidence to show that she had an accident and injury * * * which resulted in any compensable disability.

However, 'legal precision and nicety in the report should not be insisted upon,' and if the report is subject to two constructions, one which would render the award invalid and one which with equal reason would render the award valid, it 'should be construed, after judgment, to be that which will make the judgment valid.' Southeastern Express Co. v. Edmondson, 30 Ga.App. 697, 700, 703, 119 S.E. 39, 41; Maryland Casualty Corp. v. Mitchell, 83 Ga.App. 99, 101, 62 S.E.2d 415.

Moreover,...