Thomas v. U.S. Cas. Co., 21810
Decision Date | 08 November 1962 |
Docket Number | No. 21810,21810 |
Citation | 128 S.E.2d 749,218 Ga. 493 |
Parties | Mrs. Berry E. THOMAS et al. v. UNITED STATES CASUALTY COMPANY et al. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
This case arose upon the application of a deceased employee's dependent to the State Board of Workmen's Compensation for compensation. Succinctly stated, the applicant's evidence showed the deceased was on the day of his seizure discharging the duties of his employment, which consisted of 'driving a truck, delivering and unloading bundles of newspapers, weighing between 25 and 50 pounds.' Immediately upon the completion of his work he reported to his employer's circulaton office at Chamblee where a fellow employee was stationed. The employee, who testified upon the hearing before the deputy director of the Compensation Board, related in response to counsel's questions: There was other evidence in a measure corroborative of the witness's testimony.
There was ample evidence that without recovering from the seizure and about three weeks thereafter the employee died. The doctors diagnosed the cause of his death as coronary occlusion resulting in an acute myocardial infarction. The testimony of medical experts was that exertion could result in aggravating or precipitating the heart condition, but that in their opinion the employee's exertion did not, and that coronary occlusions may be experienced while one is inactive or even in repose.
The deputy director entered an award in favor of the employee's dependents; the judge of the superior court affirmed the award. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial judge and this court granted certiorari.
The opinion of the Court of Appeals is predicated upon two conclusions: first, that although there be other proof that the causation of an employee's heart attack, experienced in the course of his employment, was physical exertion, it is necessary for medical experts to testify that the seizure not only might, but actually did, in their opinion, result from the exertion, for exertion is essential to a valid award in favor of the employee or his dependents; secondly, that where there is proof from facts testified to by nonexpert witnesses that a heart attack experienced by the employee in the course of his employment was caused or precipitated by the activity of the employee in the discharge of his duties, a finding in favor of the employer is demanded by the testimony of expert witnesses that the attack was not necessarily caused by exertion on the part of the employee and that in their opinion it was not the result of the employee's activity.
Henley & Epstein, Clyde W. Henley and Leon S. Epstein, William Hall, Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.
Woodruff, Savell, Lane & Williams, John M. Williams, Atlanta, for defendants in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. The testimony of nonexpert witnesses who observed the exertion of an employee exercised in the discharge of the duties of his employment and the appearance of such employee, his obvious weakness and apparent state of being in considerable pain immediately after such exertion, together with his declarations that he is in need of medical attention and other surrounding circumstances such as the fact that he dies shortly thereafter without recovering from such seizure, even in the absence of expert medical testimony, is sufficient evidence to make an issue of fact on a hearing before the Workmen's Compensation Board as to whether the employee's death...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reynolds Const. Co. v. Reynolds
...the events surrounding the injury, and the fact and extent of the claimant's ability or inability to work. See Thomas v. United States Cas. Co., 218 Ga. 493, 128 S.E.2d 749 (1962); Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills v. Speaks, 90 Ga.App. 685, 692-696, 83 S.E.2d 872 (1954); Truelove v. Hulette, 103 G......
-
Toth v. Ensco Environmental Services, Inc.
...York, 419 So.2d 829 (La.1982); Haughton v. Fireman's Fund American Ins. Companies, 355 So.2d 927 (La.1978). Cf. Thomas v. U.S. Cas. Co., 218 Ga. 493, 128 S.E.2d 749 (1962). A worker's preexisting condition does not bar his recovery under the Louisiana Worker's Compensation statute. An emplo......
-
Jeanise v. Cannon
...of such a causal connection. Haughton v. Fireman's Fund American Ins. Cos., 355 So.2d 927 (La.1978); Cf. Thomas v. U.S. Cas. Co., 218 Ga. 493, 128 S.E.2d 749 (1962); Malone & Johnson, Walton v. Normandy Village Homes Association, Inc., 475 So.2d 320, 324 (La.1985). In the case sub judice, t......
-
Guye v. Home Indem. Co.
...agreed that the claimant's exertion did not cause his coronary occlusion. This court reversed in Thomas v. U. S. Casualty Co., 218 Ga. 493, 128 S.E.2d 749 [241 Ga. 215] (1962), holding that the testimony of a nonexpert witness who observed the deceased claimant at work and then in pain crea......
-
Workers' Compensation - H. Michael Bagley, Daniel C. Kniffen, John G. Blackmon, Jr., and Phillip Comer Griffeth
...the heart attack was not work-related, thereby failing to resolve a conflict that remains to this day. See Thomas v. U. S. Casualty Co., 218 Ga. 493,128 S.E.2d 749 (1962). 90. Generally, decisions of the State Board of Workers' Compensation must be affirmed on appeal if there is "any eviden......