From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hammock v. Davidson Granite Company

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Apr 23, 1963
131 S.E.2d 132 (Ga. Ct. App. 1963)

Opinion

40068.

DECIDED APRIL 23, 1963.

Workmen's compensation. DeKalb Superior Court. Before Judge Guess.

Herschel H. Hutchins, for plaintiff in error.

Gambrell, Harlan, Russell, Moye Richardson, James C. Hill, Edward W. Killorin, contra.


Where a claim before the State Board of workmen's Compensation involves a question of whether the employee is disabled as the result of an occupational disease, the sole jurisdiction to decide this medical issue lies with the medical board and the only jurisdiction of the Board of Workmen's Compensation is to enter an award in conformity therewith. Code Ann. § 114-810. The findings of the medical board are conclusive and not reviewable unless an appeal is made directly therefrom on statutory grounds. Code Ann. § 114-823 (5). No such error is assigned by the plaintiff in error in this case. Farrill v. Travelers Ins. Co., 105 Ga. App. 600 ( 125 S.E.2d 562). It follows that, although the evidence was in dispute, the award of the medical board was authorized by the evidence before it, and the Board of Workmen's Compensation committed no error in entering an award finding against the claimant. The Judge of the Superior Court of DeKalb County, to whom this case was appealed, did not err in affirming the award denying compensation.

Judgment affirmed. Bell and Hall, JJ., concur.

DECIDED APRIL 23, 1963.


Summaries of

Hammock v. Davidson Granite Company

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Apr 23, 1963
131 S.E.2d 132 (Ga. Ct. App. 1963)
Case details for

Hammock v. Davidson Granite Company

Case Details

Full title:HAMMOCK v. DAVIDSON GRANITE COMPANY et al

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Apr 23, 1963

Citations

131 S.E.2d 132 (Ga. Ct. App. 1963)
131 S.E.2d 132

Citing Cases

Seitzingers, Inc. v. Barnes

Thus, the only "direct appeal" to the superior court from the report of the Medical Board is one which is…

Whitaker v. Fieldcrest Mills, Inc.

Because this claim involved the question of to what extent the appellant is disabled by an occupational…