Milliken & Co. v. Poythress

Decision Date24 September 2002
Docket Number No. A02A1429., No. A02A1428
CitationMilliken & Co. v. Poythress, 571 S.E.2d 569, 257 Ga. App. 586 (Ga. App. 2002)
PartiesMILLIKEN & COMPANY et al. v. POYTHRESS. Poythress v. Milliken & Company et al.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Lewis, Taylor, Todd & Dixon, John M. Taylor, LaGrange, for appellants.

Bennie H. Black, Atlanta, for appellee.

ELLINGTON, Judge.

Following the grant of their application for discretionary appeal in this workers' compensation case, Milliken & Company and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (collectively, "the employer") appeal the order of the superior court affirming the administrative law judge's (ALJ's) grant of benefits to John Poythress. Following the grant of his application for discretionary appeal, Poythress appeals the order of the superior court reversing the ALJ's award of attorney fees to him. In Case No. A02A1428, we conclude that the administrative law judge's (ALJ's) award of benefits was supported by the evidence and accordingly affirm the superior court's ruling in that regard. On the other hand, we find the superior court erred in ruling that the ALJ's award of attorney fees was not authorized. Accordingly, in Case No. A02A1429, we reverse the superior court's ruling and reinstate the ALJ's award of attorney fees.

In reviewing a workers' compensation award, both this court and the superior court must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing before the appellate division. It is axiomatic that the findings of the State Board of Workers' Compensation, when supported by any evidence, are conclusive and binding, and that neither the superior court nor this court has any authority to substitute itself as a fact finding body in lieu of the Board.

(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Logan v. St. Joseph Hosp., 227 Ga.App. 853, 859(3), 490 S.E.2d 483 (1997).

Case No. A02A1428

1. In related enumerations, the employer challenges the factual findings of the ALJ.

Viewed in the light most favorable to Poythress as the party prevailing before the appellate division, the record shows the following: For 13 years, Poythress worked in the employer's textile mill baling towels. In March 1997, Poythress first complained to his supervisor that he was having pain in his neck, arms, and wrists, along with swelling, tenderness, and numbness in both hands, from operating the bale press. Poythress requested a transfer to another plant. Poythress first sought medical treatment and first applied for workers' compensation benefits in October 1999.

On April 7, 2000, Poythress again sought medical treatment and was diagnosed with inflammation of a tendon in his left wrist, a repetitive use injury attributed to his employment; the condition is called de Quervain's disease or radial styloid tendonitis or tenosynovitis. Poythress also received a diagnosis of degenerative cervical disk disease and cervical spondylosis, also known as severe arthritis of the neck vertebra, which caused operating a bale press to be painful.

The treating physician declared Poythress temporarily disabled effective April 7, 2000. The employer denied Poythress' request for workers' compensation benefits. Poythress requested light-duty work, but none was available. On September 25, 2000, Poythress had surgery to his left wrist. He was cleared for full-duty work beginning February 12, 2001.

The ALJ awarded Poythress temporary total disability benefits for the period from April 8, 2000, to February 12, 2001, with the exception of one week when he worked following his wrist surgery. The Appellate Division of the State Board of Workers' Compensation affirmed the ALJ's award. The superior court affirmed the ALJ's decision as to disability benefits.

Based on our review of the entire record, we find the ALJ's conclusion that Poythress had a compensable injury and was disabled from April 7, 2000, to February 12, 2001, was supported by evidence. See Young v. Columbus Consolidated Govt., 263 Ga. 172, 173(1), 430 S.E.2d 7 (1993) (testimony of employee can establish inability to perform job duties). At this stage, we lack the authority to resolve the questions of credibility and conflicts in the evidence identified by the employer. OCGA § 34-9-105(c), (d); Murph v. Maynard Fixturecraft, Inc., 252 Ga.App. 483, 555 S.E.2d 845 (2001); Southwire Co. v. Molden, 223 Ga.App. 389, 392, 477 S.E.2d 646 (1996). Accordingly, we affirm the order of the superior court affirming the ALJ's award of benefits.

Case No. A02A1429

2. Poythress contends the superior court erred in reversing the award of attorney fees because there was evidence the employer unreasonably denied his claim for workers' compensation benefits and, in the alternative, because the employer failed to controvert his claim in the time allowed.

The ALJ awarded attorney fees of 25 percent because "this claim has been...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
6 cases
  • Marta v. Bridges
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • September 23, 2005
    ...of Bridges. The evaluation of evidence was for the ALJ and Board and will not be revisited by this Court. Milliken & Co. v. Poythress, 257 Ga.App. 586, 587, 571 S.E.2d 569 (2002). Judgment affirmed. PHIPPS and MIKELL, JJ., concur. 1. "`[I]njury' and `personal injury' shall include the aggra......
  • Minter v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • December 31, 2004
    ...before State Board). 2. 269 Ga. 105, 498 S.E.2d 499 (1998). 3. 265 Ga. 825, 462 S.E.2d 606 (1995). 4. Milliken & Co. v. Poythress, 257 Ga.App. 586, 571 S.E.2d 569 (2002). 5. In Padgett, the employee was terminated from her employment "`for reasons which were directly related to her job inju......
  • Reid v. Georgia Bldg. Authority
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 2, 2007
    ...5. Premier/Ga. Mgmt. Co. v. Realty Mgmt. Corp., 272 Ga.App. 780(1), 613 S.E.2d 112 (2005). 6. See Milliken & Co. v. Poythress, 257 Ga.App. 586, 571 S.E.2d 569 (2002). 7. Davis v. Carter Mechanical, 272 Ga.App. 773, 775, 612 S.E.2d 879 (2005). 8. OCGA § 34-9-200.1(g)(6). 9. Id. 10. Although ......
  • C. Brown Trucking, Inc. v. Rushing
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 18, 2004
    ...Judgment affirmed. JOHNSON, P.J., and ELDRIDGE, J., concur. 1. OCGA § 40-2-87(19). 2. See OCGA § 34-9-1(2). 3. Milliken & Co. v. Poythress, 257 Ga.App. 586, 571 S.E.2d 569 (2002). 4. OCGA § 34-9-8(a) provides that a principal, intermediate, or subcontractor shall be liable for compensation ......
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles