AT & T Technologies v. Barrett, A90A0343
| Decision Date | 16 May 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. A90A0343,A90A0343 |
| Citation | 395 S.E.2d 22,195 Ga.App. 675 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | AT & T TECHNOLOGIES v. BARRETT. |
Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, Mark J. Goodman, Nanne A. Van't Reit, Atlanta, for appellant.
Marcus, Moskowitz & Associates, David H. Moskowitz, for appellee.
In this workers' compensation case, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) made an award and appellee-employee sought de novo review before the Full Board. The Full Board adopted the ALJ's award and, on May 2, 1989, appellee filed an appeal to the superior court. Within the sixty-day period after appellee's appeal was filed, a hearing in the superior court was neither actually held, nor scheduled, and then continued. After the sixty-day period had elapsed, appellant-employer moved for an affirmance of the award. The superior court denied appellant's motion for affirmance and, after addressing appellee's appeal on the merits, reversed the award. Appellant's application to this court for a discretionary appeal from the superior court's order was granted.
Since the award was rendered after July 1, 1988, and before July 1, 1989, the provisions of former OCGA § 34-9-105(b) are applicable. That former statutory provision provided, in relevant part, as follows: (Emphasis supplied.) Under the terms of this former statute, the burden was on appellee to insure that a timely hearing of his appeal to the superior court was either held or was scheduled, and then continued. See generally Southeastern Aluminum Recycling v. Rayburn, 251 Ga. 365, 306 S.E.2d 240 (1983). That burden was not met. The superior court had no discretion to address the merits...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
West Marietta Hardware v. Chandler
...that a hearing by the superior court outside the time limits was null and void. AT & T Technologies v. Barrett, 195 Ga.App . 675, 676, 395 S.E.2d 22 (1990). Nevertheless, later in 1990, the Supreme Court held that the time requirements for the superior court appeal, while technically exceed......
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Adkins
...Ga. 513, 397 S.E.2d 431 (1990) (see Nelson v. Felton Pearson Co., 195 Ga.App. 92, 392 S.E.2d 274 (1990)) and AT & T Technologies v. Barrett, 195 Ga.App. 675, 395 S.E.2d 22 (1990), since in both cases the procedural question whether the awards were affirmed by operation of law was the sole o......
-
Borden, Inc. v. Holland
...the statutorily "affirmed" decision of the board extant. Although the statute's predecessor was in effect in AT & T Technologies v. Barrett, 195 Ga.App. 675, 395 S.E.2d 22 (1990), the procedural posture of the parties and the applicability of the principle are the same. The only difference ......
-
Atlanta Family Restaurants, Inc. v. Perry
...be considered affirmed by the [superior] court" if timely hearing and court order do not materialize. See AT&T Technologies v. Barrett, 195 Ga.App. 675, 676, 395 S.E.2d 22 (1990). But under the current statute, the non-exercise of jurisdiction results in the Board's decision being "affirmed......