Hall v. Hartford Ins. Group, 55950

Decision Date14 July 1978
Docket NumberNo. 55950,55950
PartiesHALL v. HARTFORD INSURANCE GROUP et al.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Greene & Greene, James E. Greene, Cartersville, for appellant.

Sartain & Carey, Joe B. Sartain, Jr., Gainesville, Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, James B. Hiers, Jr., Atlanta, for appellees.

SMITH, Judge.

In this workmen's compensation case, the superior court correctly sustained the administrative law judge's determination that the statute of limitation barred appellant's claim; hence, we affirm.

The accident forming the basis for appellant's claim occurred on May 19, 1975. Appellant filed a request for a hearing with the State Board of Workmen's Compensation on November 24, 1976. During the interim, on June 1, 1975, the board's Rule 303 became effective. That rule provides: "Failure of an employer or insurer to notify the Board and the employee of a rejection of a claim within 60 days after the receipt of notice of the accident creates a rebuttable presumption of acceptance of liability." Appellant argues that appellees' failure so to notify her created a presumption that they accepted liability, a presumption which they never rebutted and which prevented them from raising the one-year statute of limitation (Code § 114-305) as a bar to her claim. Assuming appellant's argument might otherwise have merit, we must here hold to the contrary because Rule 303 did not apply retroactively to a claim accruing before the rule's effective date. "The law is well settled that generally a statute cannot be construed to operate retrospectively unless the legislative intention to that effect unequivocally appears. (Cit.) The principle is strictly applicable to statutes which have the effect of creating an obligation. An administrative regulation is subject to the rule equally with a statute; and accordingly, the regulation here involved must be taken to operate prospectively only." Miller v. United States, 294 U.S. 435, 439, 55 S.Ct. 440, 441, 79 L.Ed. 977 (1934).

Judgment affirmed.

DEEN, P. J., and BANKE, J., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Wright v. Overnite Transp. Co.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • October 11, 1994
    ...claimant's injury occurred before the rule became effective, and the rule cannot be retroactively applied. See Hall v. Hartford Ins. Group, 146 Ga.App. 751, 247 S.E.2d 570 (1978). Judgment McMURRAY, P.J., and SMITH, J., concur. 1 In essence, claimant suggests that in every case either the c......
  • Chatham County Dept. of Family & Children Services v. Williams, A96A0188
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • May 10, 1996
    ...clearly intended to be applied retroactively. See Polito v. Holland, 258 Ga. 54, 55(2), 365 S.E.2d 273 (1988); Hall v. Hartford Ins. Group, 146 Ga.App. 751, 247 S.E.2d 570 (1978). An ongoing workers' compensation case provides a unique context for retroactivity analysis, however, since once......
  • Thompson v. Wilbert Vault Co.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 21, 1986
    ...employee to suitable employment. The superior court concurred in this analysis of the amendment but, citing Hall v. Hartford Ins. Group, 146 Ga.App. 751, 752, 247 S.E.2d 570 (1978), declined to give the amendment retroactive effect. Concluding that the previous version of the code section d......
  • Newell v. Traverlers Insurance Company, 55928
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • July 14, 1978

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