Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Haygood
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Haygood
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Worrill, J.
While it is true that findings of fact, made by the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation, are,' in the absence of fraud, conclusive upon the courts where there is any evidence to support them, nevertheless, construing the testimony as a whole adduced upon the hearing of this workmen’s compensation case before the director, and upon which evidence the full board based its findings and award, the finding that the claimant was only partially dependent upon the deceased was demanded, as a matter of law, and the award of the full board based on total dependency was not authorized, and the superior court erred in not remanding the case to the board in order that findings and an award based on such partial dependency and under the formula provided in the Code, Ann. Supp. i 114-413(c) could be made., Judgment reversed.
Sutton, C.J., and Felton, J., concur.
Edgar A. Neely Jr., Neely, Marshall & Greene, for plaintiffs in error. Anthony A. May, Bennet, Peacock & Perry, for defendant.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.