Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Reavis
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Eberhardt, Judge.
1. Compliance with the thirty-day notice provision of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Code § 114-303, is a necessary prerequisite to the payment of compensation. Where the only evidence of notice was that of a claimant who, having had a previous back injury for which compensation had been paid, and now claiming a further back injury testified: “[I] told Mr. Sticky [my supervisor] that I had to go to the doctor, I was hurting so in my back. And he asked me was this my old injury and I said, 'No, I didn’t think it was my old injury, I just had a hurting in it,’ and he gave me a…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Royal Indemnity Co. v. CoulterSupreme Court of Georgia · 1957
- Davison-Paxon Co. v. FordCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1953
- Railway Express Agency Inc. v. HarperCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1944
- Roddy v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1941
- Fountain v. Georgia Marble Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1957
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Carroll v. Dan River Mills, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1984
- Consolidated Underwriters v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1962
- Farrow v. Carr Bros. Co., Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1978
- Bryant v. J. C. Distributors, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1963
- Jackson v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1969
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.