General Motors Corporation v. Peeples

Webb, Judge. Whether the method used by an employee in seeking personal comfort is "normal and prudent” is a material issue in a workmen’s compensation case (Thornton v. Hartford Acc. &. Co., 198 Ga. 786, 789 (32 SE2d 816); McDonald v. State Hwy. Dept., 127 Ga. App. 171, 174 (192 SE2d 919)); 1 and where findings as to material issues are not made, the case must be remanded to the board. U. S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Phillips, 120 Ga. App. 51 (169 SE2d 665); U. S. F. & G. Co. v. Gentile, 134 Ga. App. 318 (214 SE2d 406). Here, as in Noles v. Aragon Mills, 110 Ga. App. 374, 375 (138 SE2d 598), "[i]t is ordered that the case be recommitted to the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation in order that proper findings of fact may be made on the issues involved,” which shall include findings as to medical expenses and disability. Judgment reversed with direction. Deen, P. J., and Quillian, J., concur. Footnotes [1] See also 1 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law § 21.80 et seq.; Monahan v. Hoage, 90 F2d 419 (C. A. D. C.); Mann v. Glastonbury Knitting Co., 90 Conn. 116 (96 A 368); Healey’s Case, 124 Me. 145 (126 A 735); Bolden’s Case, 235 Mass. 309 (126 NE 668); Hunter v. American Steel & Wire Co., 293 Pa. 103 (141A 635); Relay v. Continental American Life Ins. Co., 22 N. J. Misc. 347 (39 A2d 84).