Court Opinion

ID: 9623089
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:27:34.943558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:23.423056
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Whitman, Judge.
The motion for rehearing by the claimant-appellee is hereby denied. The motion deals with the question of the action or non-action of the board with respect to the application of claimant of date January 8, 1968. In view *219of the motion it is deemed appropriate here to amplify the majority opinion by setting forth particular facts as shown by the record and related legal principles regarded as applicable thereto.
1. The hearing in this case before the deputy director was held on September 1, 1967. The hearing before the full board was had more than four months thereafter. The award of. the full board of date February 9, 1968 recites: “The above styled case came on for consideration before the full board on January 8, 1968, on appeal from the award of the deputy director dated November 16, 1967.” The application of counsel for claimant was in letter form and bears date January 8, 1968, and states that “the above case was scheduled for hearing this date (January 8, 1968) before the full board,” and by this letter motion was made to “grant to the claimant the right to reopen his case for the purpose of taking additional testimony,” and the claimant by said letter requested the full board to “allow the claimant to reopen said case and take additional testimony as herein set out.” (Emphasis supplied.) The letter of January 8, 1968, was not received by the board until January 19, 1968. It does not appear from the record that on the hearing before the full board on January 8, 1968, any motion was made by counsel for claimant for a continuance or postponement of the hearing for the purpose of hearing or taking the testimony of any witness or witnesses on behalf of the claimant at a later date.
The Civil Practice Act, Code Ann. § 81A-106 (d) provides for a written motion and notice of the hearing thereof and service of such notice and that when a motion is supported by affidavit, the affidavit shall be served with the motion. By Code Ann. § 81A-107 (b) it is provided: “(1) An application to the court for an order shall be by motion which, unless made during a hearing or trial, shall be made in writing, shall state with particularity the grounds therefor, and shall set forth the relief or order sought. The requirement of writing is fulfilled if the motion is stated in a written notice of the hearing of the motion.”
The letter of January 8, 1968, was not verified or accom*220panied by any affidavit nor was a rule nisi for a hearing sought or issued thereon; and it does not appear that there was any notice by claimant of a hearing on said motion. The letter may well have been considered by the board and disregarded as not having been in compliance with the Code sections referred to.
With respect to the Civil Practice Act it is appropriate to resort to Federal cases for its construction. Harper v. DeFreitas, 117 Ga. App. 236, 238 (160 SE2d 260). In this connection see Raughley v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 230 F2d 387, 391.
2. Grounds 1 and 2 of the letter-motion to reopen the case were that claimant was of foreign birth, age 72 years and spoke no English, and was unable to communicate with his attorney except through the aid of an interpreter, and that due to this situation claimant’s attorney was unable to impart to the claimant and receive from him all of the information necessary to properly prosecute his case; that claimant’s attorney had a conference with claimant through an interpreter while the instant case was on appeal to the full board, and that for the first time after the award of the deputy director was read to the claimant did claimant impart to claimant’s attorney the name of a material witness to the case.
As hereinabove indicated, the hearing before the deputy director was had on September 1, 1967, and the record shows that on that hearing the testimony of the claimant was by and through an interpreter, one Aristida G. Coletta, stipulated by the parties to serve as the interpreter for claimant on the hearing, and it appears that on that hearing claimant was represented by the same counsel who later by the letter-motion of January 8, 1968, requested a reopening of the case by and before the full board. The award of the deputy director was of date November 16, 1967, nearly two months before the hearing before the full board, and the hearing before the full board was more than four months after the hearing before the deputy director. Moreover, it appears from the record that the award of the deputy director was appealed to the full board on November 21, 1967, and it does not appear from the motion when during the pendency of that appeal before the *221full board counsel claimed to have had a conference with claimant through an interpreter.
It thus appears that counsel for claimant had ample opportunity prior to the date of the hearing before the full board on January 8, 1968, to1 have conferred with claimant with respect to any further preparation of the case for the hearing before the full board.
3. Ground 2 of the letter-motion states “that for the first time after the award of the deputy director was read to the claimant did the claimant impart to claimant’s attorney the name of a material witness to the case.” Ground 3 of the motion states that “claimant’s attorney shows that said witness testifies and gives evidence contrary to that given by Vickie Fennell, who testified for the defendant and employer at the hearing before Deputy Director Stripling on September 1, 1967.” The name of the purported material witness is not stated nor was it made known until counsel for claimant gave the name of the purported witness in counsel’s affidavit filed in the superior court November 25, 1968, which affidavit is hereinafter referred to in this opinion. The affidavit was not in existence at the time of the hearing by the deputy director or the full board and is not a part of the record of the case before the board. Ground 3 of the motion lacks that element or degree of particularity required by Code Ann. § 81A-107 (b). See Steingut v. National City Bank of N. Y., 36 FSupp. 486, 487. The record of the testimony before the deputy director shows that the witness Vickie Fennell, who testified at said hearing, gave testimony as to a number of material facts, and it does not appear from the motion what particular fact or facts testified to by the witness Fennell would be contradicted by the unnamed witness, nor does it appear what fact or facts would be testified to by the proposed witness.
Bearing in mind the holding of this court in Continental Ins. Co. v. McDaniel, 118 Ga. App. 344 (163 SE2d 923), quoted from in the majority opinion, that “the board, in exercising its power to take additional evidence on review, may properly be guided by principles applicable in the courts in passing on motions for new trial based on newly discovered evidence,” *222Ground 3 of the motion is purely a statement of conclusion, and at most has reference to impeaching testimony, and is without merit. Moss v. State, 44 Ga. App. 244 (161 SE 293); Gates v. State, 84 Ga. App. 367 (66 SE2d 342).
It was not necessary that the full board issue any order whatsoever on the letter-motion to reopen the case. “When an alleged extraordinary motion for new trial is entirely without merit, it is proper for the judge to decline to entertain the same and to refuse to grant a rule nisi thereon.” Harris v. Roan, 119 Ga. 379 (5) (46 SE 433). To the same effect see Loomis v. Edwards, 80 Ga. App. 396 (56 SE2d 183); Fulford v. State, 222 Ga. 846 (152 SE2d 845).
4. As hereinabove indicated, after the award of the full board had been appealed to the Superior Court of Fulton County, counsel for claimant filed in that court on November 25, 1968, his affidavit of that date verifying “the facts contained in the letter to the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation dated January 8, 1968,” and by that affidavit asked the superior court to reverse and remand the case back to the board for the purpose of allowing deponent to take the evidence of one Charles S. Glaize on behalf of the claimant, stating that the witness Charles S. Glaize is the same person alluded to in deponent’s letter of January 8, 1968. In that affidavit “deponent shows that the full board . . . abused its discretion in failing to allow said case to be reopened and the testimony of the witness, Charles S. Glaize, to be taken on behalf of the claimant.”
The affidavit involves factual connotations and neither the superior court nor this court has any fact-finding jurisdiction or power. General Accident &c. Assur. Corp. v. Titus, 104 Ga. App. 85 (121 SE2d 196); Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. West, 213 Ga. 296 (2) (99 SE2d 89).
“In the exercise of the appellate power granted to judges of the superior courts of this State in regard to workmen’s compensation cases, the judges reviewing such cases are not authorized to hear evidence, but must consider only the record on appeal. Newly discovered evidence is not a statutory ground for reversal, for which reason it may not be considered.” Wo*223mack v. U. S. Fidel. &c. Co., 85 Ga. App. 564 (2a) (69 SE2d 812). See also City of Hapeville v. Preston, 67 Ga. App. 350 (5) (20 SE2d 202).
Even if such affidavit could be considered, it appears therefrom that the unnamed witness alluded to in deponent’s letter of January 8, 1968, was one Charles S. Glaize. The name of the witness must have been known to counsel for claimant prior to January 8, 1968, the letter of that date having reference to information received by deponent in a conference had by him with claimant through an interpreter. On the hearing before the deputy director claimant had testified that on the night of his alleged injury he told one Charlie, the cook, that he was sick and that he was going home, and it also appeared on said hearing that the name of the cook was one Charlie Glass. It may be assumed that Charles S. Glaize and Charlie Glass were one and the same person.

The majority opinion of reversal is adhered to.