Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Harden
Decision Date | 19 March 1952 |
Docket Number | No. 33914,No. 1,33914,1 |
Citation | 85 Ga.App. 830,70 S.E.2d 89 |
Parties | LIBERTY MUT. INS. CO. et al. v. HARDEN |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Clara Harden filed a claim against Ray M. Lee Company and its insurance carrier, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, under the Workmen's Compensation Act for death benefits allegedly arising out of the death of her husband. On October 26, 1948, the claimant's husband, Fred Harden, fell from a scaffold while in the employment of Ray M. Lee Company and received certain head injuries. Under an agreement filed with and approved by the Workmen's Compensation Board, Fred Harden was paid compensation at the rate of $20 a week for and during a period of 26 weeks, beginning November 2, 1948, and continuing to May 9, 1949, on which date he signed a final settlement receipt. On September 19, 1950 Harden died. The single director found that Harden's death was due to the accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment with Ray M. Lee Company and based on award thereon.
At the hearing, Dr. Linton Smith testified on behalf of the claimant as follows: that he treated Fred Harden only one time, and that was on April 14, 1949; that he diagnosed the deceased's trouble as paraplegia, that is, paralysis on one side; that this was the reason the deceased came to him; that he did not have very much record on the deceased, but his only record showed that his diagnosis was paraplegia and a cerebral hemmorrhage; that he did not have any opinion as to what caused the deceased's condition; that the deceased also had arteriosclersis at the time; that he did not have any recollection of the deceased's discussing a fall with him; that 'all I have is my very brief history from him'; that in his opinion a severe concussion on the right side of the brain from a fall of fifteen feet, resulting in a skull fracture would tend to aggravate his condition; that it could cause paralysis and cerebral hemmorrhage; that it could not cause congestion of the liver and could not aggravate a heart condition; that there was conceivable as a bare possibility, but a very bare possibility, that such a fall could cause blindness; that such a fall could not have affected his blood pressure; that the deceased had a very high blood pressure and arteriosclerosis but the fall would not have caused that, it might have caused the fall; that high blood pressure and arteriosclerosis are by far the most common causes of paralysis; that he did not treat the deceased for the fall but on account of paralysis; that arteriosclerosis and high blood pressure are diseases of the blood vessels and usually go hand in hand; that a fall would not have aggravated the blood pressure or arteriosclerosis, but that these could be responsible for a person's falling; that a person suffering from these diseases is likely to fall at any time; that a person suffering with high blood pressure and arteriosclerosis can have a cerebral hemmorrhage without having a fall at all, and that most people have a cerebral hemmorrhage without any injury at all; that high blood pressure is a gradual process and does not develop suddenly; that the symptoms, paralysis, come on suddenly, but the blood pressure is built up gradually; that he could not say or express any opinion either way as to whether the fall shortened the life of the deceased or aggravated his condition;
Dr. J. L. Austin testified in behalf of the claimant substantially as follows: that he examined the deceased on August 5, 1950; that the deceased's complaint was blindness; that he diagnosed optic atrophy; that the deceased had only light perception in each eye and that he suggested that the deceased consult a neurosurgeon; that the smyptoms suggested blindness caused by disease of the eye, paropsia; that in his opinion the lesion was centralized in the eye itself; that it was possible for a blow on the head to cause blindness if there was a blood clot which usually accompanies a fractured skull; that he was convinced that some disturbance in the deceased's brain was causing his blindness; that, in order to determine the cause of the central lesion, one would have to make a study of the brain itself, and that this was the reason he sent the deceased to a neurosurgeon; that it was likely the fall caused the central lesion; that to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zippy Mart, Inc. v. Fender
...compensation to stand on purely speculative and conjectural testimony that alone proves nothing. Compare e.g., Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Harden, 85 Ga.App. 830(2), 70 S.E.2d 89 (award of compensation reversed) with Federated Mut. Hardware Ins. Co. v. Elliott, 88 Ga.App. 266(3), 76 S.E.2d 568......
-
U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Landen
...to show that the death so resulted. See Johnson v. Firemen's Fund Indem. Co., 79 Ga.App. 187(1), 53 S.E.2d 204; Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Harden, 85 Ga.App. 830(2), 70 S.E.2d 89, and Lockheed Aircraft Corporation v. Marks, 88 Ga.App. 167, 76 S.E.2d 507. Counsel for the defendants also argue ......
-
City of Buford v. Thomas
...and in the course of employment. Johnson v. Fireman's Fund Indem. Co., 79 Ga.App. 187, 53 S.E.2d 204 (1949); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Harden, 85 Ga.App. 830, 70 S.E.2d 89 (1952). The claimant must always carry the burden of showing that death resulted from an accident arising out of and in ......
-
Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. Marks
...to show that the death so resulted.' Johnson v. Fireman's Fund Indemnity Co., 79 Ga.App. 187(1), 53 S.E.2d 204; Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Harden, 85 Ga.App. 830(2), 70 S.E.2d 89. Where an employee, after sustaining an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, is......