Court Opinion

ID: 9613617
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:18:39.718915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:30.475778
License: Public Domain

Felton, J.,
dissenting. I think the court in this case has gone too far in holding in effect that the board can find, from the *175mere facts that an employee sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment, and is disabled continuously until the time of his death shortly thereafter, that the accidental injury caused or materially contributed to his death. There is no case in Georgia that so holds, according to nay interpretation. There is never a real presumption that an injury causes a death. The decisions mean to me that such an inference may be authorized where the facts of the case show the death to be the natural and reasonable consequence of the injury. I think this court went as far as it could in holding that exertion in heart cases could be held to be contributory to injury or death where the medical testimony showed only a possibility of such fact. Hartford Accident &c. Co. v. Waters, 87 Ga. App. 117 (73 S. E. 2d 70). Such a conclusion is based on the principle that even laymen can have a general knowledge of the facts of life and cause and effect and can apply the rule of reason to facts which can be found to authorize a decision on the weight of probabilities. We do not have such a case here. The burden of proof was on the claimant, as the majority opinion admits, and I do not think that burden was carried. There was no evidence from the claimant’s expert witness that the injury caused the pains and symptoms described. The claimant’s physician only testified that the heel injuries could possibly have caused the death but he stated that before he could say they did he would have to know the results of the aictopsy. So we see that in this case the claimant did not have opinion evidence to sustain a finding in her favor and she did not have facts and circumstances which would authorize a lay board to find that from their knowledge and experience and the facts of life the injuries caused or contributed to the death. If it is true that the employer's evidence did not absolutely exclude the hypothesis that the injuries caused or contributed to the death, the claimant still would not be entitled to an award because the facts are at least consistent with the theory that the injuries did not cause or contribute to the death. The liberal construction of the compensation law has not the remotest connection with whether an award is authorized in a case like this. The question is one of proof and deduction only. None of the cases cited in the majority opinion authorizes the conclusion in this case. *176In every one of them there was expert opinion or facts such as would have authorized the board to award compensation. None involved a case like this, where even medical science did not know the cause of the disease which produced death. If the ruling in this case is followed, the board in any case can hold in effect under similar facts that the insurance contemplated by the law is life insurance rather than compensation accident insurance.