Court Opinion

ID: 9586689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:14:06.415342+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:47.848058
License: Public Domain

Felton, Chief Judge.
Where claimant suffered apparent indigestion and heartburn during his work hours as city clerk on September 27, 1957, but remained at city hall until the usual time of departure at 5 p.m., although he did not do any work after 3 p.m., and during the evening at home suffered a severe chest pain and the subsequent medical examination showed that he had suffered a heart attack which, in the opinion of his physician, occurred “at the initial indigestion episode,” and where no written report of the alleged accident was made until July 10, 1958, claimant’s testimony that the city council met the day following his heart attack and “the reason they had the meeting, they weren’t sure I was protected, that is the reason they called the meeting Saturday to definitely place it [group hospitalization and life insurance coverage] with one company” does not, in the absence of further competent evidence, show notice of the alleged accident to the employer as required by Code § 114-303. There is no evidence to show that claimant’s physical distress during working hours was reported to his supervisors or to any responsible city official and mere knowledge by-the city that its employee has suffered a heart attack is not sufficient to put the city on notice that he had suffered an accident during the course of his employment. Employers Mutual &c. Ins. Co. v. Holloway, 98 Ga. App. 265, 267 (105 S. E. 2d 370). This is particularly true where, as here, there is no evidence that the employer knew of any illness or physical exertion during actual working hours so as to put it on notice of any injury arising out of and in the course of employment and allow it to make proper in*911vestigation. “Obviously, the notice required is notice of an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment, and mere notice that an employee is suffering an injury from an accident does not meet the requirement of the statute.” Royal Indem. Co. v. Coulter, 213 Ga. 277, 279 (98 S. E. 2d 899). The finding of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation that the employer had actual notice of the attack arising out of and in the course of his employment is not supported by any competent evidence, and the superior court erred in affirming the award of compensation.
Decided June 14, 1960
Rehearing denied June 28, 1960.
Powell, Goldstein, Frazer ■& Murphy, Frank Love, Jr., for plaintiffs in error.
Albert A. Roberts, contra.

Judgment reversed.

Gardner, P. J., Townsend, Carlisle, Nichols and Frankum, JJ., concur. Bell, J., dissents.