Ocean Acc. & Guarantee Corp. v. Bates, 39053
| Decision Date | 03 October 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 39053,No. 3,39053,3 |
| Citation | 104 Ga.App. 621,122 S.E.2d 305 |
| Parties | OCEAN ACCIDENT & GUARANTEE CORPORATION et al. v. Charlie BATES |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
While the award of the deputy director was supported, the evidence did not demand it, and since the award shows on its face that the deputy director applied an erroneous legal theory in evaluating the evidence and in making his findings of fact, the judge of the superior court erred in affirming the award.
Smith, Field, Ringel, Martin & Carr, Palmer H. Ansley, Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.
John D. Edge, Calhoun, for defendant in error.
Charlie Bates filed a request with the State Board of Workmen's Compensation for a hearing to determine the liability of his employer, J. P. Roberts & Sons, Inc., to pay him compensation and medical expenses on account of injuries which he alleged he sustained on the 20th day of November, 1959, as the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. On the hearing of the matter before a deputy director, the claimant testified that he hurt his back while lifting a scaffold about the middle of the afternoon; that he was working with two other employees of the defendant but did not say anything about the injury to them or to his supervisor; that on Monday, November 23rd, he was hospitalized on account of pain he was suffering in his back, and that he sent a message to his immediate supervisor to come to the hospital where he notified him of the accident and injury. Medical evidence introduced by way of depositions of three doctors was in conflict as to whether the condition from which the plaintiff was then suffering was the result of the injury or caused by disease. With respect to the whole of the evidence in the case, however, it is sufficient to say that it authorized, though it did not demand, the award in favor of the claimant which was subsequently entered by the deputy director.
In entering the award, the deputy director said, Following this language, the director found as facts that the claimant was employed by the defendant at an average weekly wage of $31.95, that the employee suffered an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment and that the employee was disabled as a result of the accident. This award was appealed directly to the superior court by the employer and insurance carrier, and the judge thereof entered a judgment affirming the award but remanding the case to the board for further findings with respect to the earnings of the employee on the ground that there was no evidence in the record to support the finding in this respect. The employer and insurance carrier except in this court to so much of the judge's order as was adverse to them.
The burden of proof was on the employee to show by a preponderance of the evidence all of the essential elements of his case, that is, that he suffered an accidental injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment, and that the disability for which he claimed compensation stemmed from that injury. American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Harden, 64 Ga.App. 593, 595, 13 S.E.2d 685; Shelby Mut. Cas. Co. v. Huff, 87 Ga.App. 463, 74 S.E.2d 251; Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. West, 97 Ga.App. 392, 396(2), 103 S.E.2d 130; 100 C.J.S. Workmen's Compensation § 547(2), p. 584. A preponderance of the evidence is the essential quantum of evidence necessary to satisfy the mind of the director as to all issues of fact in a compensation case just as it is the essential quantum necessary by satisfy the minds of fact finders in other classes of civil cases. Of course, under the rule that an award of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation based on findings of fact supported by any evidence will not be disturbed by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stokes v. Coweta Cnty. Bd. of Educ.
...what is stated in this opinion. Murph v. Maynard Fixturecraft, 252 Ga.App. at 486(2), 555 S.E.2d 845; Ocean Accident, etc., Corp. v. Bates, 104 Ga.App. 621, 621–622, 122 S.E.2d 305 (1961). Judgment reversed and case remanded with direction.DOYLE, P.J., and MILLER, J., concur. 1. See also Lo......
-
U.S. Cas. Co. v. Thomas, 39585
...N.E.2d 450. And see Hardware Nutual Casualty Co. v. King, 104 Ga.App. 252, 254(1, 3), 121 S.E.2d 336; Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp. v. Bates, 104 Ga.App. 621, 622, 122 S.E.2d 305. 'It cannot be left to surmise or conjecture, or based upon possibilities or probabilities, but must be estab......
-
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Poole
...* * * as to where the preponderance of the evidence lies * * * is necessarily not subject to review.' Ocean Accident, etc., Corp. v. Bates, 104 Ga.App. 621, 622, 122 S.E.2d 305; General Motors Corp. v. Pruitt, 83 Ga.App. 620, 628, 64 S.E.2d 339. The above provision of the 1963 amendment did......
-
Csx Transp. v. State Bd. of Equalization of Ga.
...quantum of evidence . necessary to satisfy the minds of the fact finders in civil cases." Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp. v. Bates, 104 Ga.App. 621, 622, 122 S.E.2d 305, 307 (1961). Thus, CSXT' s burden is the preponderance of the evidence III. Whether the Department Assessed CSXT's Operat......