State v. Purmort
| Decision Date | 19 September 1977 |
| Docket Number | 54293,No. 3,Nos. 54292,s. 54292,3 |
| Citation | 143 Ga.App. 269,238 S.E.2d 268 |
| Parties | STATE of Georgia et al. v. PURMORT. PURMORT v. STATE of Georgia et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Robert S. Stubbs, II, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Don A. Langham, Deputy Atty. Gen., Michael J. Bowers, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, James H. Weeks, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Decatur, W. Hensell Harris, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for State of Georgia et al.
Skidmore, Barrett & Tripp, Charles L. Barrett, III, Atlanta, for F. B. Purmort.
1. The administrative law judge in this workmen's compensation case found that claimant sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment when he was attacked and struck in the head by one of his subordinate employees as a result of a reprimand that he had given the employee because of the type work that he was doing. The full board made the same findings, the superior court affirmed, and we do likewise.
The findings and award were authorized by the evidence, and the record does not demand a finding that claimant was the aggressor (see Code Ann. § 114-105; Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills v. Haynie, 43 Ga.App. 579, 159 S.E. 781 (1931)) or that the attack was directed against claimant for nonwork-related personal reasons. See Code Ann. § 114-102; Lanier v. Brown Bros., 44 Ga.App. 831, 163 S.E. 263 (1932). Consequently, while a different result could have been reached (U.S.F. & G. Co. v. Giddens, 102 Ga.App. 576, 116 S.E.2d 883 (1960)) the award was authorized (Commercial Constr. Co. v. Caldwell, 111 Ga.App. 1, 140 S.E.2d 298 (1965)) and cases cited, the "any evidence" rule being applicable to those questions. Wolfe v. Williams, 92 Ga.App. 1, 87 S.E.2d 436 (1955); General Fire & Cas. Co. v. Bellflower, 123 Ga.App. 864, 182 S.E.2d 678 (1971).
2. It does not appear that the employer/self-insurer was defending without reasonable ground, and consequently the denial to claimant of costs and attorney's fees complained of in the cross appeal was not reversible error. Code Ann. § 114-712.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Handcrafted Furniture, Inc. v. Black
...within the meaning of OCGA § 34-9-1(4). We find this issue controlled adversely to defendants by the holding in State of Ga. v. Purmort, 143 Ga.App. 269(1), 238 S.E.2d 268 (1977): "The findings and award were authorized by the evidence, and the record does not demand a finding ... that the ......
-
Murphy v. ARA Services, Inc., 64293
...v. Chattooga Mercantile Co., 74 Ga.App. 18, 38 S.E.2d 675 (1946). See Woodward v. St. Joseph's Hosp., supra; State of Ga. v. Purmort, 143 Ga.App. 269(1), 238 S.E.2d 268 (1977); Lynch v. General Motors Corp., 134 Ga.App. 113, 213 S.E.2d 525 (1975); Sands v. Union Camp Corp., 559 F.2d 1345 (5......
- Albee v. Krasnoff
-
Walsh Const. Co. v. Hamilton
...attack must be work-related rather than for personal reasons, in order for the injury to be compensable. See State of Ga. v. Purmort, 143 Ga.App. 269(1), 238 S.E.2d 268 (1977). There was no evidence that the incident between Hamilton and Mitchell grew out of anything other than a personal s......