Court Opinion

ID: 9587835
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:26:50.394348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:46.294938
License: Public Domain

On Dependant in Error’s Motion for Rehearing.
Hall, Judge.
Distributors contends that the court’s decision is based on facts different from the findings of fact set out by the director in the award. It is true that the director recited evidence in addition to the facts stated in the court’s opinion, including a letter quoted in the award, in support of the ultimate finding that Distributors was given the required notice. This ultimate finding was based on all of the facts found by the director on this point. Whether or not Distributors’ argument is sound that a finding of notice based on the letter itself would be erroneous, the evidence recited by the director exclusive of that letter was sufficient to support the ultimate finding. That the director included in her findings some evidence that was not essential does not invalidate the award.
Neither Pacific Employer’s Ins. Co. v. West, 213 Ga. 296 (99 SE2d 89), cited by Distributors, nor any other decision we have found is contrary to this holding.

Rehearing denied.

Bell, P. J., and Parnell, J., concur.