From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Manufacturers Casualty Co. v. Badgett

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Mar 1, 1956
91 S.E.2d 861 (Ga. Ct. App. 1956)

Opinion

36080.

DECIDED MARCH 1, 1956.

Workmen's compensation. Before Judge Manning. Cobb Superior Court. November 30, 1955.

Harry E. Monroe, for plaintiff in error.

T. Charles Allen, contra.


The trial court did not err in affirming the findings of fact and award of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation.

DECIDED MARCH 1, 1956.


Mrs. Inez Badgett brought a claim against Manufacturers Casualty Company, the insurance carrier for the Mumford Stores, Inc., seeking a hearing before the State Board of Workmen's Compensation for the purpose of determining liability, compensation, dependency and medical expenses for herself, the wife of a deceased employee of Mumford Stores, Inc. A hearing was had, resulting in findings of fact and award in favor of the claimant. Appeal was made to the Superior Court of Cobb County which resulted in affirmance of the award of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation.

The evidence shows substantially that the deceased was the manager of Mumford Stores, Inc. This store sold general building materials for homes, such as asphalt, tile, linoleum, cement, paint, paint brushes and various and sundry items which could be used in and about the home; that the store was one of a chain of similar stores; that the store in Marietta had an average weekly sales total of about $900; that the store had two employees, the deceased and one other; that on the day of the death of the deceased the sales totalled $115; that prior to the death of the deceased, the deceased had complained to his wife that he doubted he would be able to continue the daily physical exertion which the position in the store required; that the store sold paint in various size cans; that the store sold tile, each package weighing 20 pounds; that the store sold 20 and 40 pound packages of cement, sold brick and very heavy building materials; that the deceased would lift and take purchases to the vehicles of the customers. The other employee in the store testified that the deceased, on the day of his death, handled one order consisting of about 600 pounds of tile; that the deceased carried the tile to the customer's vehicle and loaded it therein; that the deceased "got up" at least five additional orders for customers. The evidence reveals that the deceased went to lunch; that later the other employee went to lunch; that about ten minutes after the other employee returned the deceased complained of tightness across his shoulders and in his chest; that the other employee went for Coca-Colas (the employees drank Coca-Colas whenever they wished, if there were no customers to serve); that about five to ten minutes thereafter the deceased collapsed and was pronounced dead of coronary thrombosis upon his arrival at Kennestone Hospital.

Doctor F. H. Goodwin, a specialist in internal medicine, including the treating and diagnosis of heart diseases, testified that although he could not state positively, it was his opinion and diagnosis that increased physical labor over a period of time "specifically the carrying of weights amounting up to 50 pounds . . . certainly such exercise or exertion, plus ordinary exertion, would have an effect on this condition which might well precipitate or have precipitated the attack. . . In my opinion the undue exercise of physical labor engaged in probably precipitated the coronary attack that came on, if it did not actually or was not actually the precipitating cause, I would say that certainly it influenced it. . . Q. What would you say in your opinion as to it being a contributing factor, Dr. Goodwin, to the attack? A. You are referring still to — Q. (Interrupting): Yes, to the exercise late in the morning. A. That is right; I think that it probably contributed to the onset of the attack, again, that has to be a matter of personal judgment and opinion based on experience, but it would be my opinion that undue exercise would be one of the contributing factors."

The insurance carrier submitted that the deceased had been doing this type of work for approximately six months.


The deputy director who heard the case made a very comprehensive finding of fact and award in favor of the claimant, which was later affirmed by the full board, and subsequently affirmed by the Superior Court of Cobb County. See Williams v. Maryland Casualty Company, 67 Ga. App. 649 ( 21 S.E.2d 478); Travelers Insurance Company v. Young, 77 Ga. App. 512 ( 48 S.E.2d 748); Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Bridges, 81 Ga. App. 395 ( 58 S.E.2d 849); Bussey v. Globe Indemnity Co., 81 Ga. App. 401 ( 59 S.E.2d 34); Hartford Accident c. Co. v. Waters, 87 Ga. App. 117 ( 73 S.E.2d 70); Thompson-Weinman Co. v. Yancey, 90 Ga. App. 213 ( 82 S.E.2d 725).

There is some evidence to support the award which, in the absence of fraud, is binding on this court. See United States Fidelity c. Co. v. Neal, 188 Ga. 105 ( 3 S.E.2d 80). Also the principles of law set out in Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Griggs, 190 Ga. 277 ( 9 S.E.2d 84) were fully complied with in the instant case, according to the evidence which the State Board of Workmen's Compensation had a right to accept or refuse. Such evidence was accepted and made the basis of the findings of fact and award. The causal connection between exertion and the ultimate death of the deceased is sufficiently shown.

The trial court did not err in affirming the findings of fact and award of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation.

Judgment affirmed. Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Manufacturers Casualty Co. v. Badgett

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Mar 1, 1956
91 S.E.2d 861 (Ga. Ct. App. 1956)
Case details for

Manufacturers Casualty Co. v. Badgett

Case Details

Full title:MANUFACTURERS CASUALTY COMPANY et al. v. BADGETT

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Mar 1, 1956

Citations

91 S.E.2d 861 (Ga. Ct. App. 1956)
91 S.E.2d 861

Citing Cases

King v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

The evidence was sufficient to support the award. Manufacturers Cas. Co. v. Badgett, 93 Ga. App. 449 ( 91…

Fulton County v. Windsor

Where there is some evidence to support an award of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation, and where…