The State Board of Workmen's Compensation based the award for injury to an arm on Code 114-406. There is evidence to show that the injury was to the arm and that other parts of the body were not affected by such injury. The State Board of Workmen's Compensation did not err in the award.
L. W. Godbee, hereinafter called the claimant, brought suit against Union Manufacturing Company, the employer, and American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, the insurance carrier, because of an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The employer and the insurance carrier agreed that the injury was compensable. Controversy arose as to whether or not the claimant should be compensated for an injury to a specific member (arm), covered in Code 114-406 as contended by the employer and the insurance carrier, or under the bodily disability sections of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as contended by the claimant. The claimant asked for and obtained a hearing before a single director of the Workmen's Compensation Board which resulted in an award based on 100 percent loss of use of his left arm, and compensation was granted under Code 114-406. The full board examined the award of the hearing director. On appeal to the Superior Court of Greene County the award was affirmed. It is to this judgment that the case is before this court for revIew.
J. There is competent testimony to show that the injury to the arm was not a causative factor in relation to other disabilities of the claimant. When such evidence is adduced, this court is without authority to reverse the judgment of the superior court based on facts found, and award based on such facts, by the State Board of Workmen's Compensation.
The only case cited by counsel for the claimant is Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. Hollifield, 93 Ga. App. 51
(90 S. E. 2d 681). That case involved a back injury--not a member (arm), as in the instant case. We have read the original record in that case as it appeared in the first instance in this court ( Hollifield v. Croft Chenille Co., 90 Ga. App. 594
, 83 S. E. 2d 584), and as presented to this court in Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. Hollifield, supra. We find the facts so dissimilar to the facts in the instant case that that decision shows no basis for a reversal of the instant case.
In Travelers Ins. Co. v. Reid, 178 Ga. 399 (173 S. E. 376) the Supreme Court held that a resulting injury to other parts of the body must be shown if other than compensation for injury to a member is to be awarded. No such injury is shown in the case at bar. In Roddy v. Hartford Accident &c. Co., 65 Ga. App. 632, 635 (16 S. E. 2d 81) it is held that Code 114-406 provides compensation for the loss, or loss of use, of a member irrespective of the earning ability of the claimant after the injury is sustained, and ruled that a claimant is still entitled to compensation for the loss or injury to a member even though he is able to return to his regular job.
The Superior Court of Greene County did not err in affirming the finding of fact and award of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation.
Judgment affirmed. Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.