Benefield v. Harriett Henderson Cotton Mills

Full title: BENEFIELD v. HARRIETT HENDERSON COTTON MILLS, INC. et al

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Apr 29, 1966

149 S.E.2d 196 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966)

149 S.E.2d 196

Opinion

41883.

ARGUED APRIL 4, 1966.

DECIDED APRIL 29, 1966.

Workmen's compensation. Chattooga Superior Court. Before Judge Fariss.

Howe Murphy, Harold L. Murphy, for appellant.

Pittman Kinney, L. Hugh Kemp, for appellee.

EBERHARDT, Judge.

1. (a) A claim for compensation for an injury as defined in Code § 114-102 must be filed within one year from the date of the accident causing the injury. Code § 114-305.

(b) Where the accident causing the alleged injury occurred January 28, 1963, and the employee's claim for compensation was received and filed by the board January 28, 1964, it was not timely filed.

2. A finding by the board that the accident upon which the employee predicated his claim occurred January 28, 1963, is conclusive when supported by any evidence.

3. An "occupational disease" is not compensable unless it is one included in Code § 114-803.

Judgment affirmed. Bell, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.

ARGUED APRIL 4, 1966 — DECIDED APRIL 29, 1966.

EBERHARDT, Judge.

James Benefield, a cotton mill employee, filed a claim for compensation with the board January 28, 1964, based upon an "accident" in the handling of "Liquid Wrench" for the loosening of rusty pipe, etc., on January 28, 1963, (the last date on which he handled the preparation) the manifestations of which did not show up until he went home and broke out in a rash on the evening of the same day. Alternatively he claimed to have suffered an occupational disease from the use of the chemical solvent containing graphite. There was no showing that the solvent contained any of the poisons listed in Code § 114-803, and the medical testimony was that the claimant suffered from anemia, which the doctors did not believe was caused by the solvent. There was testimony that the "Liquid Wrench" was in daily and general use by industrial concerns, businesses, contractors, and the like, other than cotton mills or industries in the textile field. An award was made denying compensation on the grounds that no accidental injury within a year prior to the date of filing the claim was shown, and the evidence utterly failed to show that claimant had suffered any occupational disease. The award was affirmed on appeal to the full board and on appeal to the superior court.