Kay v. Maryland Cas. Co., 50563
| Decision Date | 13 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 50563,50563,3 |
| Citation | 217 S.E.2d 413,135 Ga.App. 108 |
| Parties | Raymond KAY v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Robert T. Efurd, Jr., W. C. Dominy, Atlanta, for appellant.
Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, W. Wray Eckl, Atlanta, for appellees.
1. The supplemental memorandum of agreement as to payment of compensation (Form 19A), reciting that the employee returned to work on October 8, 1973 at the same weekly wage as he was earning before he was injured 'and that liability for temporary total disability ceased on' October 8, 1973, upon its approval by the board on November 1, 1973, was res judicata as to the termination as of October 8, 1973, of the obligation of the employer and insurance carrier to make any further payments to the employee on account of disability resulting from the August 20, 1973 injury until set aside by some method provided by law. Code § 114-709 as amended; Atlanta Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Gates, 225 Ga. 824, 171 S.E.2d 723.
2. Where the board's approval of the said Form 19A agreement contained a recital that it approved the agreement subject to the condition that the board retained the right the board has jurisdiction to review and revise its award based on the Form 19Aagreement by virtue of the employee's 'appeal' to the board, timely filed within 30 days of the approval of the agreement, asking that the approval be set aside and a change in condition hearing be held on the grounds that the employee had attempted to return to work, had been fired for inability to work, and was refused additional medical treatment. Handley v. Travelers Ins. Co., 131 Ga.App. 797(1), 207 S.E.2d 218 and cits. See also Code § 114-708, as amended by Ga.L.1975 .
3. The fact that the deputy director, following the change in condition hearing, provided in his findings of fact that 'the Form 19A agreement indicating a return to work of October 8, 1973, should be set aside in its entirety,' did not have the effect of automatically reinstating the liability of the employer/insurer for the full 52-week healing period or until the date of either the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fieldcrest Mills, Inc. v. Richard
...Co., 100 Ga.App. 289(1), 111 S.E.2d 103; Turner v. Travelers Ins. Co., 114 Ga.App. 729, 731(4), 152 S.E.2d 783; Kay v. Maryland Casualty Co., 135 Ga.App. 108(1), 217 S.E.2d 413. 3. Employer next contends that the award was based on an erroneous legal theory in changing from a specific membe......
-
Walker v. Continental Ins. Co.
...Ga. 179, 182, 33 S.E.2d 336 (1945); Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co. v. Lattimore, 165 Ga. 501, 141 S.E. 195 (1928); Kay v. Maryland Cas. Co., 135 Ga.App. 108(2), 217 S.E.2d 413 (1975). We recognize that the State Board of Workmen's Compensation is an administrative body and that it possesses only......
-
Classic Enterprises, Inc. v. Continental Mortg. Investors
... ... 645, 646; 1970, pp. 170, 171); American Appraisal Co. v. Whitley Construction Co., 126 Ga.App. 398, 190 S.E.2d 838; Carter v ... ...
-
Moore Business Forms, Inc. v. Matthews, 67097
...for either party." Morris v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 122 Ga.App. 436, 438, 177 S.E.2d 174 (1970). Accord, Kay v. Maryland Cas. Co., 135 Ga.App. 108(1), 217 S.E.2d 413 (1975). See also Fieldcrest Mills v. Richard, 141 Ga.App. 702(2), 234 S.E.2d 345 In order to resume the payment of benefits......