Womack v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
| Decision Date | 08 March 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 33829,33829,2 |
| Citation | 85 Ga.App. 564,69 S.E.2d 812 |
| Parties | WOMACK v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. (a) Undisputed evidence that a letter was properly addressed, properly stamped, and deposited in the United States mails, is sufficient to raise a presumption that the letter was received by the addressee.
(b) Undisputed evidence that a letter was addressed to the 'Industrial Board, State Capital, Atlanta, Georgia,' stamped and deposited in the United States mails, together with evidence that mail so addressed is usually and regularly received by its suceessor, the State Board of Workmen's Compensation, is sufficient to raise a presumption that such letter was received by the intended addressee.
2. (a) In the exercise of the appellate power granted to judges of the superior courts of this State in regard to workmen's compensation cases, the judges reviewing such cases are not authorized to hear evidence, but must consider only the record on appeal. Newly discovered evidence is not a statutory ground for reversal, for which reason it may not be considered.
(b) Where the evidence in the record is sufficient to support the award, the judge of the superior court has no discretion, upon review thereof, to remand the case for the purpose of taking further testimony.
E. J. Womack sustained an injury from an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment which resulted in his being totally paralyzed for a period of more than three years. His wife testified that in June, 1948, within one year from the date of his injuries she wrote a letter reporting the injury and claim thereunder to the 'Industrial Board, State Capitol, Atlanta, Georgia,' stamped and mailed by herself in the Augusta post office, and signed 'Mrs. E. J. Womack'. A duplicate copy of the letter was introduced in evidence at the hearing. There was evidence to the effect that none of the personnel of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation recalled ever having seen such letter, and evidence that it could not be found in the department; but there is no direct evidence that this letter was not received by the Board of Workmen's Compensation.
This court certified to the Supreme Court for decision the following questions in this case:
'1 (a). Is testimony on behalf of the claimant in a Workmen's Compensation case to the effect that a claim for compensation was interposed on behalf of the claimant by writing a letter within the period of the statute of limitations, which letter contains all facts necessary to constitute a claim under Code, § 114-305, and which was properly addressed, properly stamped and mailed to the State Board of Workmen's Compensation, sufficient to support a finding of fact that the claim was filed, notwithstanding evidence to the effect that none of the personnel of the Board recalls ever having seen such letter and evidence that it cannot be found in department of Workmen's Compensation?
'(b) If the answer to 1(a) is in the affirmative, may this fact be established where the evidence is sufficient to authorize the Board to find that such letter was, within the period of the statute of limitations, and during the month of June, 1948, addressed to 'The Industrial Board, State Capitol Building, Atlanta, Georgia', the evidence also showing that the letter was 'stamped' (but is silent as to the amount of postage) and mailed?
'2 (a). May the Superior Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction in a Workmen's Compensation case entertain a motion charging fraud in the procurement of the award alleged to have been discovered after the appeal was made, where fraud was not one of the grounds of appeal in the first instance?
'(b) If the answer to (2-a) hereof is in the affirmative, may such a motion be filed and entertained after the time for appeal has expired, although an appeal on other grounds is pending?
'(c) If the answers to (2-a) and (2-b) hereof are in the affirmative, may the Superior Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, hear new evidence in support of such a motion?
While the Supreme Court declined to answer the above questions, Womack v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 208 Ga. 717, 69 S.E.2d 188, it held that the questions comprehend every issue presented for decision, and that to answer said questions would be to decide the case. Thus it becomes the law of the case that answers to these questions will decide this case.
The director before whom the case was heard found that the letter containing notice of claim, which the undisputed evidence showed that Mrs. Womack had written and mailed on behalf of her husband during his period of total disability, and which letter was addressed to the Industrial Board, State Capital, Atlanta, Georgia, created a presumption of delivery and was sufficient to constitute the filing of the claim, although there is in the record a letter signed by the Secretary-Treasurer of the Board stating that its records do not show that it has ever received any reports in connection with the case nor any request for a hearing.
The director entered an award in favor of the claimant which was appealed to the full board and affirmed. This award was appealed to the Superior Court of Richmond County, and while the appeal was pending there, counsel for the employer and insurance carrier, plaintiffs in error, filed a pleading denominated an extraordinary motion to set aside, reverse, and remand the case on the ground of fraud perpetrated upon the commissioner, in that it is alleged that on July 24, 1951, appellants' counsel learned for the first time that the original of the letter reporting the accident, copy of which was introduced in evidence, is not in the files of the Board of Workmen's Compensation, but is in the possession of an attorney of the Augusta bar, and that a subpoena duces tecum has been served upon him for its production. Fraud in the procurement of the decree was not alleged as one of the original grounds of appeal. Upon consideration...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re American Properties, Inc., Bankruptcy No. 80-40156
...still raised. See, e.g., Mary Fletcher Hospital v. City of Barre, 117 Vt. 430, 94 A.2d 226 (1953); Womack v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 85 Ga.App. 564, 69 S.E.2d 812 (1952). Where an addressee is a well known public entity or business, a more general and less definite address ......
-
Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Snyder
...Ragan, 191 Ga. 811, 14 S.E.2d 88, supra; Burdett v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 40 Ga.App. 92, 149 S.E. 55; Womack v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 85 Ga.App. 564, 569, 69 S.E.2d 812. It was error, therefore, for the court to admit and consider copies of the two letters directed to the bo......
-
In re American Properties, Inc.
...still raised. See, e.g., Mary Fletcher Hospital v. City of Barre, 117 Vt. 430, 94 A.2d 226 (1953); Womack v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 85 Ga.App. 564, 69 S.E.2d 812 (1952). Where an addressee is a well known public entity or business, a more general and less definite address ......
-
Turner v. Baggett Transp. Co.
...Ins. Co., 44 Ga.App. 478, 162 S.E. 297; Travelers Ins. Co. v. Wofford, 81 Ga.App. 421(1), 58 S.E.2d 853; Womack v. United States F. & G. Co., 85 Ga.App. 564(2b), 69 S.E.2d 812; Butler v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N.Y., 88 Ga.App. 620(2), 76 S.E.2d 813. The rule has special application where th......