Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Cofield v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
Citations: 138 S.E.2d 115; 110 Ga. App. 225; 1964 Ga. App. LEXIS 576Docket: 40824
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; September 8, 1964; Georgia; State Appellate Court
The Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed a decision denying compensation to Rudine Cofield, who sustained an injury to her left foot while at work. The denial was primarily based on the claim that Cofield did not provide adequate notice of her injury to her employer as required by Code § 114-303. Cofield reported her injury to Mrs. Hart in the office shortly after it occurred, but Mrs. Hart testified that she did not recall being informed of the injury. The deputy director found that the claimant's notice was insufficient and cited the Crews v. General Motors Corp. case to support this conclusion, emphasizing that mere notification of suffering from an injury did not meet statutory requirements. However, the court found that the deputy director's findings did not align with the facts. It noted that the notice given by Cofield was sufficient to alert the employer to investigate further, as established by precedent cases. The court concluded that the notice provided by Cofield, when considered with the employer’s manager's acknowledgment of receiving accident reports, indicated compliance with the notice requirements. Thus, the superior court’s affirmation of the board's award was flawed due to the misapplication of legal standards regarding notice. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, with Judges Hall and Russell concurring.