Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Clark

I concur in the conclusion reached in Division 1 because the findings of fact were not sufficiently set forth in the award. OCGA § 34-9-102 (f) calls for “findings of fact and conclusions of law and any other necessary explanation of the action taken.”

A leading case which discusses this is Southeastern Express Co. v. Edmondson, 30 Ga. App. 697 (1) (119 SE 39) (1923). It was noted that where the award was structurally deficient, the case could be remanded “in order that the commission may state its findings upon the evidence previously taken.” Id. at 700. The court explained: “it is the duty…