Marta v. Bridges

• Decision Date: 23 September 2005
• Docket Number: No. A05A1274.,A05A1274.
• Citation: 623 S.E.2d 1,276 Ga. App. 220
• Parties: METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY v. BRIDGES.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

276 Ga. App. 220

Page 1

623 S.E.2d 1

METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY v.BRIDGES.

No. A05A1274.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

September 23, 2005.

Reconsideration denied November 4, 2005.

Robert Routman, Atlanta, for Appellant.

Steven Marcus, Marcus & Jones, Atlanta, for Appellee.

ANDREWS, Presiding Judge.

Pursuant to our grant of its application for discretionary appeal, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) appeals from the superior court's order affirming the appellate division's affirmance of administrative law judge (ALJ) Badcock-Hagler's ruling that MARTA had improperly reduced and then stopped the temporary total disability payments of employee Hoyle Bridges.

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.

(Footnote omitted.)Mayor, etc., of Savannah v. Stevens,261 Ga.App. 694, 695, 583 S.E.2d 553(2003), rev'd on other ground, 278 Ga. 166, 598 S.E.2d 456(2004).

So viewed, the facts are that Bridges, a long time employee of MARTA, aggravated preexisting problems in his right knee and back while lifting a coin box and stepping off a bus on October 24, 2001.¹MARTA accepted the injuries as compensable and Bridges was first examined by Dr. Dawkins, who released Bridges for return to light duty work on November 9, 2001.A WC-104 to this effect was filed with the Board.On January 9, 2002, Dr. Bernot performed knee surgery on Bridges' right knee and released him to regular duty in April 2002.Pursuant to that release, MARTA filed a WC-2, with Dr. Bernot's release attached, asserting that Bridges had undergone a change in condition for the better and suspended Bridges' temporary total disability payments.Bridges requested a hearing, contending his condition had not changed for the better and seeking reinstatement of temporary total disability benefits as well as a change of authorized treating physician.A hearing was held before ALJ Conner on September 5, 2002, and an award was issued on November 1, 2002.In that award, which is res judicata in this case,² Judge Conner concluded that Bridges' condition had not changed for the better and he was entitled to temporary total disability benefits retroactive to April 5, 2002, when they originally ceased, continuing forward.The award also ordered a change in authorized treating physician to Dr. Kingloff "for [Bridges'] work-related injuries from this date forward."The award also found that Dr. Bernot had not treated Bridges' back problems, only his knee.MARTA acknowledges that, since November 1, 2002, Dr. Kingloff was Bridges authorized treating physician.In addition, the award established that Bridges had been capable only of sedentary work since the 2001 accident.

On January 21, 2003, MARTA unilaterally reduced Bridges' income benefits under OCGA § 34-9-104(a)(2) to temporary partial disability payments.This reduction was premised on the WC-104 which MARTA based on Dr. Bernot's conclusions about Bridges' condition in February 2002.

On July 21, 2003, MARTA suspended all income payments to Bridges based on its claim that aggravation of his condition by work had ceased.OCGA § 34-9-1(4).

Bridges requested a hearing which was conducted by ALJ Badcock-Hagler in August 2003, on the issues of benefit reduction and suspension.In her ruling of December 10, 2003, Badcock-Hagler found that the reduction and suspension of benefits were improper and that Bridges was entitled to recommencement of temporary total disability payments.She also specifically found that "the employer/self insurer has failed to prove compliance with the mandatory requirement [(OCGA § 34-9-104(a)(2))] of filing a Form 104 [(Dr. Bernot)] with the Board.The Board's file does not contain a copy of a Form 104 [(Dr. Bernot )] and the employer/self insurer was not able to produce a copy bearing the Board's filing stamp."

This finding was affirmed by the appellate division and superior court.

1.MARTA's first three enumerations deal with the interpretation of OCGA § 34-9-104(a)(2) and they are considered together.

That statute, titled "Modification of award or order contained in prior decision in event of change in condition" states that:

(a)"Change in condition" defined; benefits.

(1) As used in this Code section, the term "change in condition" means a change in the wage-earning capacity, physical condition, or status of an employee or other beneficiary covered by this chapter, which change must have occurred after the date on which the wage-earning capacity, physical condition, or status of the employee or other beneficiary was last established by award or otherwise.

(2) When an injury is not catastrophic, as defined in subsection (g) of Code Section 34-9-200.1, and the employee is not working, the board shall determine that a change in condition for the better has occurred and the employee shall be entitled to the payment of benefits for partial disability in accordance with Code Section 34-9-262 if it is determined that the employee has been capable of performing work with limitations or restrictions for 52 consecutive weeks.Within 60 days of the employee's release to return to work with restrictions or limitations, the employee shall receive notice from the employer on a form provided by the board that will inform the employee that he or she has been released to work with limitations or restrictions, will include an explanation of the limitations or restrictions, and will inform the employee of the general terms of this Code section.In no event shall an employee be eligible for more than 78 aggregate weeks of benefits for total disability while such employee is capable of performing work with limitations or restrictions....Whenever an employer seeks to convert an employee from benefits for total disability to benefits for partial disability as provided in this paragraph, such employer may convert the benefits unilaterally by filing a form indicating the reason for the conversion as prescribed by rule of the board.

(Emphasis supplied.)

Also, Board Rule 104, in effect in 2003, required that, in order to unilaterally convert total temporary disability payments to partial temporary disability payments, the employer

shall file Form WC-2 and shall attach a copy of the authorized treating physician's report establishing that the employee has been released to return to work with restrictions or limitations, and must specify on Form WC-2 ... that the employee has been medically determined to be capable of performing work with limitations or restrictions for at least 52 consecutive weeks, or 78 aggregate weeks, and that Form WC-104 with an attached medical report, was sent to the employee no later than 60 days after the date that the employee was determined able to return to work with restrictions or limitations.The Form WC-2 and Form...