Guess v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 22269

Decision Date10 January 1964
Docket NumberNo. 22269,22269
Citation219 Ga. 581,134 S.E.2d 783
PartiesH. C. GUESS, Jr. v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. et al.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Syllabus by The Court

The Workmen's Compensation Act of this State contains no provision which automatically cancels and award which the board has pursuantly made for disability compensation benefits to an employee who has sustained a compensable injury. Code § 114-709 and Rule 17 which the compensation board adopted pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of that section of the Code provide ample and the only available procedure for terminating or modifying such an award and, until it is thus terminated or modified, the employer or his insurance carrier must comply with the terms of it even though the employee accepts employment from a different employer from whom he receives wages equal to or in excess of the amount he was earning at the time of his injury.

The Court of Appeals, 134 S.E.2d 787, certified the following question: 'Where an employee is injured and an agreement to pay total disability compensation benefits is entered into between the employer and employee and approved by the compensation board and such agreement has not been changed or modified by express agreement of the parties or by the judgment of the compensation board or otherwise, is the employee entitled to continue to receive payments for total disability under the agreement after he accepts employment from a different employer and earns as much as or more than he was earning at the time of his injury?'

Albert Feldman, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Greene, Neely, Buckley & DeRieux, Burt DeRieux, Atlanta, for defendants in error.

CANDLER, Justice.

That an employee has suffered an injury compensable under the terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act may be conclusively established by an agreement filed with and approved by the compensation board, Code § 114-705, or by an award of the board after hearing evidence, Code §§ 114-706-114-708. Regardless of which of these two methods is employed, it is a decision or judgment of the compensation board which must be complied with until it is superseded by a new award. Home Accident Insurance Company v. McNair, 173 Ga. 566 161 S.E. 131; Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Company v. Cook, 195 Ga. 397, 24 S.E.2d 309. Until it is so changed or modified in the manner and way provided by the compensation Act, it has the same force and effect as the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Atlanta Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Gates
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 4 Diciembre 1969
    ...charged, nor the employer credited, with moneys paid under the first or previous award or agreement. In Guess v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 219 Ga. 581, at p. 582, 134 S.E.2d 783, at p. 784, Justice Candler, for the court, stated: 'And under Rule 17 of the compensation board which was adopted p......
  • Georgia Pacific Corp. v. Wilson
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 10 Marzo 1997
    ...There is no provision for automatic cancellation of an award; thus, an award remains in effect until changed. Guess v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 219 Ga. 581, 134 S.E.2d 783 (1964); Hayes v. Consolidated Freightways, 131 Ga.App. 77, 205 S.E.2d 40 (1974). Even if the appellee's physical conditio......
  • American Mut. Liability Ins. Co. v. Chandler
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 2 Noviembre 1965
    ...for leave to stop payment of such compensation is granted by the board under the provisions of such rule.' Guess v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 219 Ga. 581, 582, 134 S.E.2d 783. Rule 17 of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation provides in part as follows: 'Compensation cannot be discontinued......
  • Garmon v. State, 22249
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 10 Enero 1964
    ... ... that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, except by due process of law; and ... Augusta Cotton & Compress Co., 104 Ga. 403(1), 30 S.E. 888; Flannery v ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT