Owensby v. Riegel Textile Corp., 39027

• Decision Date: 24 October 1961
• Docket Number: No. 1,No. 39027,39027,1
• Citation: 104 Ga.App. 800,123 S.E.2d 147
• Parties: R. L. OWENSBY v. RIEGEL TEXTILE CORPORATION
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 147

123 S.E.2d 147

104 Ga.App. 800

R. L. OWENSBY v. RIEGEL TEXTILE CORPORATION.

No. 39027.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

Oct. 24, 1961.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 17, 1961.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The evidence supported the finding of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation that the defendant had made available to the claimant light work suitable to his impaired condition; that he had knowledge that this employment was attainable but made no attempt to return to work and was, therefore, allowed compensation only to the date the suitable work was made available.

2 (a) The finding of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation that the defendants were furnishing the claimant with adequate medical attention, and that he sought private medical services without requesting of his employer or the board a change of treatment or physicians was supported by the evidence.

(b) Under Code § 114-501 the board properly held the employee to be barred from recovering his privately incurred medical expense where there was no request made of the board to order a change of physician or treatment and designate another physician or other treatment.

The claimant made his application for a hearing for an award of benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act because of an alleged injury received in the course of his employment. After a hearing before a deputy director, an award was entered making findings of fact, among others, that the defendants were furnishing claimant with adequate medical attention but that the claimant sought private medical attention without requesting of his employer or the board a change of treatment or physician, and was, therefore, barred from recovering hospital and medical expenses of certain named doctors; that the claimant's disability continued through September 15, 1960, at which time light work suitable to his impaired condition was made available to him. He was awarded compensation from the time found as the beginning of disability continuing until September 15, 1960, the date at which time the light work suitable to his condition was found to have been made available to him. The claimant appealed to the full board, a majority of which, after a hearing, made the findings of the deputy director its findings of fact, and made the award of the deputy director the award of a majority of the full board.

The claimant appealed to the Superior Court of Chattooga County, Georgia, which affirmed the award of the board, to which judgment the claimant excepted.

Wade H. Leonard, Rossville, for plaintiff in error.

Matthews, Maddox, Walton & Smith, Oscar M. Smith, Rome, for defendant in error.

BELL, Judge.

1. The claimant's first objections relate to the findings of fact that the defendant had made available to the claimant light work suitable to his impaired condition; that the claimant had knowledge that this work was available to him; that the light work suitable to his impaired condition was available to him as of September 15, 1960; and that the claimant's disability ended on that date. He contends that these findings were mere conjecture; that the phrase, 'available light work suitable to claimant's impaired condition,' has no definite meaning; that there is no evidence in the record showing that defendant made available or offered any kind of work the claimant could do; that the director was mistaken about the date any work was offered or made available; and that the record is without any evidence to support such a claim.

The medical evidence in the record shows that Dr. [C.], on August 30, 1960, wrote, 'This patient is making a satisfactory postoperative recovery. It is anticipated that he will be able to return to work which does not require heavy lifting by September 15, 1960. It is my opinion that he will have 15% permanent partial disability.' Another attending physician, who was a partner of Dr. [C.], testified he would agree with that opinion. The claimant testified, at the hearing, that he was in better condition than he was from November 13, 1959, until March 26, 1960, during which time he had been doing lighter work. He further testified: 'Q. As far as you know that job is still yours? A. As far as I know it is. Q. And you have not tried doing it? A. No.' His overseer testified that the claimant has not come back and asked to be put back on, but that, 'Q. Do you hereby offer him the job? A. That's right.' (This offer was the date of the hearing, September 21, 1960.) The job was identified as paying the same as his former one. The assistant personnel manager of the defendant testified that he had talked to the claimant on several occasions before and following the operation, and that he asked him how he was getting along...