Court Opinion

ID: 9588313
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:32:49.124722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:07.686844
License: Public Domain

Pannell, Judge,
dissenting. There is no finding that claimant violated any statute of this state, although the case cited by the full board was one where compensation was denied because of the violation of a statute. We might assume, therefore, that the wilful misconduct consisted of the claimant’s having the pistol in the place of business where he was in training as a manager, which was contrary to instructions given him by his employer, except for the fact the full board struck the finding, that the wilful misconduct consisted of this act, and substituted one finding claimant’s action "under the circumstances” was wilful. What circumstances? That question remains unanswered by the findings of fact. To say that the wilful misconduct still consisted of the claimant’s having the pistol in the place of business contrary to instructions, when that very finding of what the wilful misconduct had consisted was stricken by the full board is neither logical nor consistent with the board’s actions. One of the grounds of appeal is statutory, that is, that the findings of fact are insufficient to support the award of no compensation. We agree. "The Georgia Workmen’s Compensation Act (Code § 114-707) requires that an award of the Board of Workmen’s Compensation shall be accompanied by a statement of findings of fact upon which it is made in order that the losing party may intelligently prepare his appeal and that the cause may thereupon be intelligently reviewed. To fulfill this requirement, the findings of fact must consist of a concise but comprehensive statement of the cause and circumstances of the accident as found to be true by the Board of Workmen’s Compensation and similar findings of fact upon any material issue in the case. See Atlanta Transit System v. Harcourt, 94 Ga. App. 503 (95 SE2d 41); Southeastern Exp. Co. v. Edmondson, 30 Ga. App. 697 (1) (119 SE 39); American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Hardy, 36 Ga. App. 487, 490 (137 SE 113).” Noles v. Aragon Mills, 110 Ga. App. 374, 375 (138 SE2d 598).
The award of the full board was not authorized by the findings of fact made and the judge of the superior court erred in affirming *71it on appeal. I would reverse and order that the case be recommitted to the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation so that proper findings of fact may be made on the issues involved.
I am authorized to state that Judge Evans concurs in this dissent.