*1 against guilt accusation this defendant is not evidence of presumption guilt. filing and carries with it no an accusation itself is no the evidence whatsoever of merely commission of a is crime. It the the contentions of setting State forth the elements of offense with charged. entry writing the defendant No or on this you by accusation be considered as evidence in this you you may only It will out case. to with refer to it what determine the issues are between State and (Emphasis supplied.) Assuming the defendant.” it was go jury error to allow the accusation to to the room blocking without out therein, the affidavit contained charge was harmless. The made it clear that neither the anything accusation nor written or entered on the accusation, was to be in considered evidence case. Further, all facts set forth in the affidavit were also accusation, in stated Guy, which was sworn to M. S. arresting pleading officer. The accusation was a properly jury the case and went to the room. See Cain supra. State, guilty contrary The verdict of was not evidence.
Judgment Quillian Clark, JJ, concur. affirmed. September Submitted 7, 1975 1975 Decided October Rehearing denied October Pye Parker, Groover, Poss, Groover, Jr., & Lewis M. appellant. Solicitor, Bowers, Hinson A. McAuliffe, Frank appellee. Solicitor, Assistant 50749. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY al. COMPANY et
v. WEISE. Judge. Stolz, appealed deputy Claimant an adverse of the Compensation. director to the State In its Board Workmen’s findings of fact the full board found from the experience did "that claimant evidence 2, 1973, on or about compensable injury accident employment, of and in the course of arising out date, on or about incident reason of traumatic the conditions cumulative effect of reason *2 full The board entered under which she worked.” unanimously. compensation for the claim denying full County Court of reversed the Superior DeKalb board, legal was on holding its award based an erroneous Co., the set out in Ford theory, in that law Thomas v. Motor 874) (181 512, not followed. Thomas, the DeKalb portion by That of relied on supra, is, the Superior Court "It is well settled that congenital a whether pre-existing of well otherwise, is It is also settled [Cits.] objectively is disability that where a results which ascertainable, although it is physiologically compensable day day, from to imperceptible the onset of is disability specifiable and there is no one 'accident’ at a time is result be attributable.” This place to which the However, 514), is (p. sound law. as also noted in Thomas can the denial of contradictory evidence authorize (see Co., Royal Indem. compensation also Phillips 304)), can of impeachment Ga. as (see Employers the claimant also Grooms Pacific 525)). fact, In the full board findings its of "considered had who treated significant” physician, claimant’s to record from any history since "failed claimant on the any claimant or render treatments to August of accidental until when basis applied him she had claimant informed benefits,” and that compensation workmen’s claimant a "with a statement provided group had insurer (for eliminating group accident as basis claim” benefits). Held: nor Superior County
Neither Court DeKalb fact to issues of its this court can substitute Compensation. the State Board Workmen’s for that of (Code Ann. to statute by § do so We are not authorized 114-710) times. so held countless has been 114-710, catchwords Ann. Code annotations under § findings.” any If "conclusiveness there in evidence support findings them, the record to and award of the Board State of Workmen’s must case, In affirmed. Compensation this State Board Workmen’s disability found, "The claimant’s ultimate general physical complicated result of a condition problems any incapacity . . . [that] female . . . work pre-existing was the result of medical conditions resulting activities, from work-connected and not (R. 193). aggravated by work-connected activities.” experience full board concluded the claimant did not arising an accident or out of and employment, the course of her of a reason 2,1973, traumatic incident on or about reason of the cumulative effect of the conditions under she worked. There is evidence in record to substantiate these conclusions. There is also evidence which would support finding duty for the It claimant. is the deputy director and the full board determine the issues made, of fact. Code Ch. 114-7. Once this determination is *3 ” binding questions it is "conclusive and (Emphasis supplied.) as to all of fact. § equally Code Ann. 114-710. We apply "any evidence” rule to claimants well as to employers. Superior of Court of DeKalb
County is reversed with direction that the award of the State Board of Workmen’s be affirmed. Judgment Bell, J., Pannell, J., reversed. C. P. Clark, Quillian, Marshall, JJ, Been, Webb and concur. J., J., Evans, P. and dissent.
Argued May September 21, 24, Decided
Gambrell, Russell, Killorin, Forbes, Wade & Edward appellants. Morse, W. Killorin. Jack O. Borsey, appellee.
Jack Judge, dissenting. Evans, Sylvia manager Weise, Mrs. claimant, was of a shoe store, injury April and 18, suffered an 1973, on. compensable. adjudicated Weise v. to be not
was Maryland This Cas. employer that contends here because mentioned is any injury aggravation could not be that April not 18, 1973 itself was because sequitur, when because is a non This employee employ to employer and cause to continued July 1973, heavy-lifting until work and do strenuous the aggravation had not even and was a new April be res 18,1973, not therefore and could occurred on injury. adjudication judicata the earlier as to unrebutted evidence was and person, naturally busy and industrious was Mrs. Weise never towards always resting taking easy move on the but as manager discharging the store. her duties any duty other it fell to do more than to feel it her seemed She employee, boy employed, there was no stock and as weighing heavy shoes, numerous cases her lot to lift Saturday pounds. and from 30 to On as much as Sunday, early lasting July into the and June 30th and inventory store, and 2nd, taken of the hours of separate entirely new date she suffered on that existing injury. apart of her and from suffering former from her severe headaches She was imposed upon heavy injury, aggravated her, work help pain medicine, it did not took much and while she at all. She completely finally out, at and worked herself go just them she could 1:30 a.m. she told to lay went further, on the down counter bit sleep. totally exhausted, superior that she She told her pain pain, not even touch she could and in such severe Monday, July anything. on 1:30 a.m. This was about superior reported had hurt she She *4 immediately she had been con- before herself; bending aggravating tinuously and this herself all straightening up; by lifting hurt herself that she had she told him hurting herself shoes; that her
the cases of and lifting many cases. too resulted from foregoing as evidence before was adduced The yet deputy unrebutted, and he rendered director and
357 against judgment appeal a claimant. On to the full board accepted, his but the full board went April finding back to the of case and against appeal claimant; rendered an award and on superior court, aside; the full board was and set reversed required and the order compensation the board to find her claim for compensable, July 2,1973 to be and that finding the board enter an in her favor as to the compensation sought by claimant. majority
The feel the Workmen’s by physician’s opinion testimony. Board was bound Not disregarded rhyme so! Such evidence without Corp. App. Lane, reason. Ocean Accident &c. 64 Ga. 149 (1) (12 413); Liberty Williams, Mut. Co. v. 44 (1)(161 853). contrary, Ga. SE To the it has been person injuries held that a knows more about his own suffering college physicians.” than "a whole Southern (1) (60 297). Tankersley, R. Co. Ga. SE party physician merely testifies to facts; the testifies opinion. judge superior ruling. court was correct in his injury noncompensable. It is true earlier was held injury But claimant testified to a new which occurred (T. 116), p. testimony after the first was not employer required addition, refuted; and in her to (even aggravate existing injury though work and first compensable), aggrayation was not and such equivalent was likewise It was to a new injury. injury, Thus we have the new and the existing of which authorized the judge superior court to decide in claimant’s favor. Claimant’s was not rebutted. See v. v. Thomas 874); Co., Shipman Ford Motor Employers Mut. &c. Ins. I submit that this be affirmed, case should I therefore dissent. comprehensive
1. In a well-reasoned and decision Judge court, Deen, of this Chief written concurred in Judge Judge Pannell, Bell and it was held that: "[aggravation pre-existing of whether con- genital compensable.” otherwise, Thomas v. Ford *5 supra; App. 512, 514, Co., 123 Ga.
Motor
Manufacturers
898);
App.
Aetna
Peacock,
97 Ga.
v.
Cas. Co.
Cagle,
v.
Cas. &c. Co.
"(jJob-connected
holds that:
addition,
case
the Thomas
In
bending
lifting, stooping
with a
combined
duties of
pre-existing
temporary
infirmity
congenital
to result in
period
employee-claimant
disability
for a
of the
total
including hospitalization,
time and
loss of
time,
expenses
. . .”
are
medical
City
Hampton,
389, 390
139 Ga.
Atlanta v.
2. In
(5) (77
393),
Supreme
the trial
held that
Court
SE
charged
correctly
to recover
that one is entitled
court
though
pre-existing
aggravation
plaintiff
even
aof
entirely by
her
was caused
her
contends
Whatley Henry, 65 Ga.
In
v.
sidewalk.
fall on a defective
(4) (16
214),
"The
is held:
healthy, may
diseased,
recover
well as the
or
sick
injuries
negligence
proximately
of another.
caused
independent
only
of,
recovery may
for those
And
of,
or disease.”
such sickness
but also
(2),
Bray
that:
Latham,
it is held
ill-health should be wrong-doer, part of a for more forbearance on subject of a . . health. Where than a state of robust question already diseased, should be how tort aggravate any, or much, protract the tort contributed if wrongfully, .. To cause sickness the disorder. aggravate protract it, to health for is an damages are recoverable.” to an case, was entitled In this the claimant existing aggravation of her both because of award condition injury suffered the new and because of was rebutted. as none of her inasmuch supra; App. 512, Co., 123 Ga. Motor Thomas v. Ford Shipman Employers Mut. &c. supra. Judge Presiding Deen to state that
I am authorized joins in this dissent.