*1 nevertheless, faith, each inor bad intent with fraudulent cast an identifia- presumed to the law renders invalid know elector is David [Jarreau v. . in the Jarreau case . The decision ble ballot. (La. voters therein 218] it clear App.) 2d makes S. in- rendered the ballot way participated in the action which no slip casts ballot with numbered a voter who valid. action, position; It is his own not in the same thereto is attached destroys its and innocently, that his vote identifiable makes albeit O’Niell, 192 2d secrecy.” S. Cusimano General, pаrticipated as curiae Attorney amicus election, municipal in- pointed in a cogently out that appeal, has geographical relatively number in clоse volving a small of voters necessary is proximity, maintenance of a secret ballot the strictest easily brought social, pressures can be so financial and оther since to bear. directing the court erred therefore conclude be counted.
ballots er- appeal be dismissed as the enumeration The cross requirеd within the time. filed rors Whitman, concurs reversed. concurs. judgment. LIABILITY INSURANCE MUTUAL 46103. EMPLOYERS et COMPANY al. v. VIDETTO. duputy Judge. In case the this workmen’s
Whitman, compensation in of fact and an award employee’s widow minor children. of the deceased favor appeal deputy’s and award were On to the full board the board made own and award set aside and compensation. denied claim an order revers- appeal to the court the court entered On dep- affirming the award of the the full board’s award appealed uty order director. This mentioned last enumerated as error. employed in a textile mill. The The decedent was found that "the worked as a doffer on the shift a.m.; period ending from 11:00 to 7:00 thаt for a 5-week week, per 16 he had worked 48 hours but for week ending February hours; only 23 had worked year week, last say- to be off about once a *2 badly, permission usually he fеlt but denied as the shorthanded; crew was ending that he worked the 8 hours 7:00 Monday 24, morning, February a.m. Monday and on that p.m. at about 10:00 plant walked from his to the to p.m., commence shortly work at 11:00 but after arrival asked permission off, (the his foreman for to be which was denied him foreman gave doesn’t now believe claimant him a reason for first); request thе at then at about p.m. 6 minutes to 11 he again permission asked and his foreman then noted that he inquired looked sick and employee of the and was told he didn’t feel he сould make and the foreman told him to wait for help home; get someone to him that about 11:00 vomited and lost consciousness and the foreman concluded he was sick at his stomach and cared for him with wet towels and man, Henry Faulkner, called the first-aid thought he looked like he had midnight phoned ulcers and who about em- ployee’s they University wife and Hospital took him to employee died about 33 hours later without con- sciousness.” deputy
The findings testimony from the medical rupture the effect that decedеnt died from or occlusion of cere- vessels; bral blood that the decendent’s left heart ventricle had enlarged high become pressure from sustained pe- bloоd over a weeks; physician riod of several that stated that one with high pressure blood permitted should not be to work as a "dof- fer” and physician’s it was the medical decedent’s stroke was on the cumulative adverse effect of long standing position pe- over a high pressure. riod of weeks with blood ultimately director found emplоy- "the exertion of work ee’s contributed to the stroke from which death soon occurred and found the and death arose out of the course of his
Whereas, are set made such as forth full board the same aside and
above and award. made its own that death resulted cere- aside from a accident, limited are to what bral vascular very span, wit: brief time as of fact that on finds a matter "The board p. m. and walked to employee left his home at about 10:00 place employer’s of business where he was commence arriving plant but at 11:00 m. After at before work work, requested commencing per- of his foreman request gave no to be off reason for his to bе mission but day. commencing Shortly from his duties on this before relieved employee again from his foreman to asked employee appeared noticed to bе be off and feel was told that he did not well and sick and did not feel he could work. The *3 take him and about 11:00 m. wait until someoné could vomited and lost consciousness. by and first-aid man аnd was then car- cared employee’s University Hospital wife to ried thirty-three later approximately died with- out consciousness.” findings only, "[T]he the board
Based on concluded: engage any activity in which could have or and, therefore, died about the attack from which he not result from accident and finds that his death did an in arose out оf and the course of his Held: merely ascertaining of type of this the time attack in 1. In a case working hours, employee’s and that is all the relation to the disclose, in this сase does not answer claim. otherwise, type that an of attack Stated job compensable while on neither the case as ensues concludes (112 320); (Callaway Hurley, App. Mills 100 Ga. 781 SE2d Co. v. 926) (124 Co., ), App. v. Ga. Power 105 Ga. 486 SE2d nor Hansard an onset hours foreclose does outside (60 Meeks, 258); (Liberty App. Mut. Ins. 81 Ga. 800 SE2d Co. Co., App. Maddox v. &c. 81 Ga. Buice Transfer 461 (59 329); Maryland Dixon, App. 504 SE2d Cas. Co. 83 Ga. (63 272); Elliott, Federated Mut. &c. Ins. SE2d 568); Springfield 920)). Surety Corp., The case of v. National Hoffman 784) showing discusses the which a claimant support type: in must makе to an award a case of this by evidence, otherwise, "[I]t must be shown or employment, exertion attendant the duties of no matter slight strenuous, how or how and no matter with what other pre-existing predisposition factors —such as or disease to at- combined, may tack —it sufficient contribute toward precipitation of the attack. Where evidence as to strenuous, engaged sufficiently in shows it to be or of such a that, case, nature combined with the other facts of the it raises through experience а natural inference human it did so contribute, cases, opinions this is sufficient. In other of ex- perts that the exertion shown the evidence to exist would be sufficient is also sufficiеnt part to authorize a fact-finding But, way tribunal in did. one or anoth- er, appear.” the fact must goes saying fact,”
It "findings without that the sup order to
port granting denying compensation, award either or address itself to these same issues. The absolute silence of the full board’s controlling case on the is sues of fact does not authorize us conclude that the full inquire negаtive. board did but found in the Instead we must board, by conclude determining only whether the stricken, job was on or off the when decided the case legal theory. on an involving erroneous "Cases cerebral hem morrhage frequently compensable have spite been held *4 time, lapse extending that there has been a days, few minutes to severаl between the exertion it which was contended the cerebral accident and the ultimate disability.” Springfield Harris, death or (1a) supra, and citations. The trial court did not err to the extent that it full reversed the
board. only has the au- superior court "Upon of an review affirm, to the board.
thority in some cases remand reverse or American Cas.
618).” Lashley, Cotton Mills Fulton 180). When the affirmed the.award of the full bоard and reversed the award director, judgment the court effect substituted erro- extent the order was full this for neous. it re- accordingly direction that affirmed with
The case
mаke further
opportunity
full
for
manded to the
board
proper
of the evi-
findings of
based
consideration
fact
legal principles previously
light
applicable
dence
forth.
any ruling
full
on what the
not and do not make
We can
forth the
findings of
should be.
have set
fact
award
way binding
findings,
in no
which are
director’s
West,
(Pacific Employers
Argued April 21, 1971. 197 1 Decided Mullins, Jr., George appellants. for W. Rushing,
George appellee. B. specially. many Judge, concurring As I see theory” legal cases are but a device which we have the "erroneous rule, "any escape frоm the evidence” heretofore used as gainsaid prefer I to return. cannot be which would reached, support the and autho- the cases cited do conclusion remand of the case. rize a joins
Presiding Judge special Hall concurrence.