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.
Roper Corp. v. Youngblood
Citations: 142 Ga. App. 193; 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1538; 235 S.E.2d 593Docket: 53805
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; April 18, 1977; Georgia; State Appellate Court
The ruling affirms the decision of the full board and superior court regarding a workmen’s compensation claim where the claimant injured his back while performing his regular job duties involving twisting and moving doors and cartons. The claimant reported back pain, attempted to work for eight or nine days despite experiencing sharp pain, and ultimately ceased working. He later sought employment elsewhere but was not hired due to his reported symptoms during a required physical examination. Medical examinations revealed that the claimant had a congenital lumbar spine abnormality (spondylolisthesis) that could be exacerbated by lifting and bending, and he had no prior back issues. The appellant argued that the claimant's testimony was contradictory, particularly regarding his motivation to seek another job, asserting it stemmed from dissatisfaction with how he was treated rather than his injury. However, the context of his statement indicated it was related to the employer’s failure to provide lighter duties or allow medical visits post-injury. Additionally, prospective employers had initially shown interest but later withdrew after reviewing the claimant's medical examinations. The court also addressed comments made by the administrative law judge about the employer's history of not offering light work to injured employees. The employer's witness defended their practices, stating they only provided light work based on medical advice rather than employee requests. The court found no grounds for reversal based on these comments, as the full board reviewed the case de novo and could disregard any irrelevant evidence. The judgment was ultimately affirmed with concurrence from the judges involved.