97 Ga. App. 607 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1958
Lead Opinion
The defendants contend that the evidence is insufficient to show that the claimant notified his employer of the accident as required by law. In a deposition the claimant fully testified that he had given such notice. However, in his testimony at the hearing, he did not testify as to any notice given to his employer. The question is whether or not the deposition was in evidence so that the testimony contained in the deposition concerning such notice was before the board in their consideration of the case. The deposition was certified to the superior court as being a part of the record in the case and is also a part of the record in the case as it stands before this court. After a careful examination of the entire record, it appears that the deposition was received in evidence and was before the director and the full board upon their consideration of the case, and since there was testimony in the deposition to the effect that the required notice had been given by the claimant to the employer, a finding that such notice had actually been given was authorized.
The defendants further contend that certain hypothetical facts were not substantiated by the actual facts as they appeared in the evidence. One such discrepancy was that in the hypothetical question it was stated that the barrel fell against the claimant knocking him against the back of the truck, whereas the evidence showed that the barrel knocked the claimant against the side of the truck. This discrepancy was inconsequential and could not have had any bearing whatsoever on the doctor’s answer to the hypothetical question as a whole. The other discrepancy was that the hypothetical question contained the fact
The evidence authorized a finding that the defendant at the time of the hearing was suffering a temporary total disability. There was medical evidence that the claimant was 95 percent disabled from doing the type of work he was employed to do at the time of his injury. The claimant testified that he could not do any lifting of any sort and could not find any work which he could do with his existing injury. This evidence was sufficient to authorize the finding as to temporary total disability.
Since there was evidence to support the awards of the single director and the full board, the court erred in reversing the award and in remanding the case for a de novo hearing.
Judgment reversed.
Rehearing
On Motion for Rehearing
In their motion for rehearing, the employer and carrier contend that the evidence - showed “that plaintiff was rendering services for which he received compensation at the time of the
The board was authorized to find that under this arrangement the claimant was not employed for wages but that the claimant was allowed to stay on the farm because of “the shape” he was in, merely out of the charity of the owner of the farm and that the owner merely received the incidental benefit that the claimant’s presence there would deter vandalism and thievery. In other words the board was authorized to find that the claimant was not an employee of the farm owner and received no wages or compensation as such for staying on the farm.