Opinion
38090.
DECIDED JANUARY 21, 1960.
Workmen's compensation. Floyd Superior Court. Before Judge Hicks. October 13, 1959.
Harbin M. King, for plaintiffs in error.
Henry A. Stewart, Sr., contra.
Where, as here, a hearing director of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation finds against a claimant, and the full board affirms the award, the appellate courts are bound by precedents reflected by decisions holding that if there is any evidence to support the findings of fact and award of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation, such award must be affirmed.
DECIDED JANUARY 21, 1960.
The widow of Charles A. Baynes, Mrs. Mamie B. Baynes, and Emma Jean Baynes, his minor daughter, filed their claim before the State Board of Workmen's Compensation against Burlington Mills, Inc., and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, to determine liability compensation, funeral expenses and dependency. A hearing was had before a deputy director of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation on September 23, 1958. There was a stipulation between the parties substantially to the following effect: (1) That the deceased Baynes sustained an accidental injury on August 21, 1956; that at that time he sustained a strain in the lumbosacral area; that he never submitted to an operation for a spinal fusion, but he did remain under the treatment of doctors; (2) that the hearing director had previously made an award dated May 23, 1957, granting compensation to Charles A. Baynes for total disability, which compensation was paid during the lifetime of the deceased and (3) that Charles A. Baynes died on February 3, 1958. It has been stipulated that the sole issue to be determined by this court is whether the death of the said Charles A. Baynes bore any relation to his original accidental injury which he sustained while in the employ of Burlington Mills, Inc., or if his death was due to natural causes or to an illness.
The evidence shows substantially that the widow testified that her husband died of cancer on February 3, 1958; that he had been in good health prior to the date of the accident and that since that time he had been constantly plagued with back pains; that he had been confined to his bed for several months; that he started losing the use of his left leg and arm, which condition grew progressively worse; that after having been confined to his bed for nine weeks he was admitted to the Veterans' Hospital on or about January 4, 1958; that during the nine weeks prior to his admittance to the Veterans' Hospital her husband was unable to retain his food and consequently gradually lost weight and strength; that after his admission to the hospital he was only able to receive nourishment intravenously.
Dr. Martin T. Meyers testified on behalf of the widow and minor child substantially to the effect that the deceased died from a cerebral condition which was complicated by carcinoma metastatic, or cancer; that in his opinion Charles A. Baynes had an underlying malignancy and that there was a possibility that it was aggravated by the trauma; that there was a difference of opinion among the members of the medical profession, but it was the opinion of the witness that the malignancy was aggravated by the accidental injury.
Dr. James Olley, a pathologist at Crawford W. Long Memorial Hospital, testified on behalf of the defendants that it was his opinion that there was no relation between the original back injury and the ultimate death of the deceased.
The deputy hearing director of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation denied benefits to the widow and minor child. The award was appealed to the full board where the findings of fact and award of the deputy director were affirmed. The Superior Court of Floyd County affirmed the State Board of Workmen's Compensation. It is to this judgment that the case is here for review.
Counsel for the employer and insurance carrier argue that the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act must be construed reasonably and liberally with a view of applying the beneficent provisions of the statute so as to effectuate its purpose. This is a correct principle of law generally, but of course the appellate courts have some leeway in deciding how to apply the rule. It is also true, as contended, that in order to recover for an injury under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, it must appear that the injury arose out of, and in the course of employment, and that the accident was within the purview of the act. We are of the opinion that the record in the instant case will measure up to these requirements. While the evidence is not as full as is the evidence in most workmen's compensation cases, still, this court cannot say there was no evidence to support the findings of fact and award. We see no good reason to discuss the many cases cited and discussed by counsel on behalf of the widow and minor daughter of the deceased, since this court is still bound to affirm the award of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation if the findings of fact and award are supported by any facts. In General Accident, Fire c. Assurance Corp. v. Rhodes, 83 Ga. App. 837 (1) ( 65 S.E.2d 254), this court said: "An award made upon review by all of the directors of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation under Code § 114-708, affirming a previous award by one director upon issues of fact, is conclusive as to those issues if there is any evidence to sustain it. Fralish v. Royal Indemnity Co., 53 Ga. App. 557 ( 186 S.E. 567); Merry Bros. Brick Tile Co. v. Holmes, 57 Ga. App. 281 ( 195 S.E. 223); Peninsular Life Ins. Co. v. Brand, 57 Ga. App. 526
(196 S.E. 264); American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Jenkins, 63 Ga. App. 777 ( 12 S.E.2d 80); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Sanders, 182 Ga. 594 ( 186 S.E. 693); Webb v. General Accident, Fire Life Ins. Co., 72 Ga. App. 127 ( 33 S.E.2d 273)." There is evidence authorizing the award of the single director in denying compensation, which award was affirmed by the full board, and the superior court did not err in sustaining the award.
Judgment affirmed. Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.