Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Archer, 40294
| Decision Date | 26 September 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 40294,No. 1,40294,1 |
| Citation | 134 S.E.2d 204,108 Ga.App. 563 |
| Parties | LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al. v. W. F. ARCHER |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
The court did not err in reversing the award of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation which stopped compensation under an approved agreement because it found that the employee's condition had improved to the extent that he was no longer disabled, a finding which was not authorized by the evicence.
Greene, Neely, Buckley & DeRieux, James H. Moore, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
G. L. Dickens, Jr., Milledgeville, for defendant in error.
This is a compensation case in which the exception is to the reversal by the court of an award stopping compensation under an agreement by reason of the finding that the employee's condition had improved to the extent that he was no longer disabled. The award involved a retroactive feature to the extent of ten days prior to the application for a hearing on change in condition. Since the whole award is set aside the retroactive feature becomes moot.
The award was that the employee 'did undergo a change in condition on September 20, 1960, when he returned to work.' Since there was no other finding of fact on the subject of change in condition, the award is interpreted to mean that there was a change in condition because the employee returned to work. This court has already held that the mere fact of an employee's going back to work does not conclusively show that he has recovered from an injury. Bell v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 108 Ga.App. 173, 132 S.E.2d 538. Neither does merely going back to work show a change in condition for the better. The employee in this case suffered a physical injury. He went back to work but quit because, as he testified, he was not able to continue. It is true that two doctors testified that there was no physical disability resulting from the accident at the time of the request for a hearing on change in condition. However one doctor testified that there might be psychological disability as a result of the injuries received in the accident. Such a liability is compensable. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North American v. Loftis, 103 Ga.App. 749, 120 S.E.2d 655. The burden of proof was on the employer and insurance carrier to prove that the claimant's condition had improved to the extent that he was no longer disabled or was less disabled than at the time of the agreement. One doctor testified that the employee did not appear to be malingering, that he had a fair knowledge of psychiatry but not enough to express an opinion as to whether the claimant was malingering. The other doctor testified that he thought the employee was convinced that his disability was related to his injury. We conclude that the employer and carrier did not carry the burden of showing such a change in condition was would authorize a definite award. Even if it be conceded that some...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atlanta Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Gates
...not able to continue on his job, due to his injuries, in his regular work or could only do lighter work. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Archer, 108 Ga.App. 563, 134 S.E.2d 204; Bell v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 108 Ga.App. 173, 132 S.E.2d 538. These rulings insured protection to the emp......
-
Cornell-Young (Macon Pre-Stressed Concrete Co.) v. Minter
...173, 132 S.E.2d 538. Neither does merely going back to work show a change in condition for the better.' Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Archer, 108 Ga.App. 563, 564, 134 S.E.2d 204." Hartford Accident, etc., Co. v. Bristol, 242 Ga. 287, 248 S.E.2d 661 is a case closely on point, although we note i......
-
Waters v. National Biscuit Co.
...nevertheless compensable.' Indemnity Ins. Co. of N. A. v. Loftis, 103 Ga.App. 749, 751, 120 S.E.2d 655, 656; Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Archer, 108 Ga.App. 563, 564, 134 S.E.2d 204. The evidence discussed above showed a causal relationship between claimant's original injury and her other ph......
-
Peck v. Eimco Process Equipment Co.
...work following the industrial injury. See Roberts v. WPBT, 395 So.2d 233, 234 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Archer, 108 Ga.App. 563, 564, 134 S.E.2d 204, 205 (1963); Schober v. Mountain Bell Tel., 96 N.M. 376, 381, 630 P.2d 1231, 1236 (N.M.Ct.App.1980); Harmon v. SAIF, 71......