Court Opinion

ID: 9607095
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:55:27.687882+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:37.104556
License: Public Domain

Stolz, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur in the judgment and the reasoning expressed in the majority opinion, but would like to add an observation as to the award. The evidence presented authorizes the finding of the deputy director that the "claimant did not suffer an injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment. That there was no *860evidence that the convention claimant was to attend was a part of his employment.” These findings of fact are correct and under the "any evidence rule” this court is bound by them. However, for the reasons stated in McDonald v. State Hwy. Dept., 127 Ga. App. 171 (192 SE2d 919) and cits., I strongly disagree with that portion of the deputy director’s finding of fact wherein the deputy director found, "That even if he were being sent by the employer to the convention, and salesmen and traveling men are given great latitude while traveling, claimant was on a mission personal to himself, to get cigarettes. That he was doing nothing to further the business of his employer.” Obviously, this "finding” is surplusage. It is not essential to the award in this case. It is dictum and, in my opinion, patently erroneous dictum, that materially detracts from the basic award.