Raines and Milam v. Milam
| Decision Date | 16 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 63156,63157,s. 63156 |
| Citation | 289 S.E.2d 785,161 Ga.App. 860 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | RAINES and MILAM et al. v. MILAM et al. (Two Cases). |
James T. McDonald, Jr., Atlanta, for appellants in both cases.
Lawson A. Cox, II, Atlanta, for appellees in both cases.
Gary Hurst, Atlanta, for appellee in No. 63157.
These are companion cases with identical issues; therefore, we will decide them in one opinion. Donald Milam was employed by and was working with his father, Cordie Milam, for the summer. On July 28, 1978 Cordie and Donald were working on a pipe laying job and were buried when a ditch collapsed, resulting in their deaths by suffocation. An investigator was appointed by the workers' compensation insurance carrier, and the investigator determined that Donald, who was 15 years of age, had no known dependents. Therefore, the investigator recommended to the carrier that $10,000 be paid to the Subsequent Injury Trust Fund (Ga. Code Ch. 114-9). Such payment was made to the Fund pursuant to a "No Dependence Agreement" dated November 28, 1978 between the insurance carrier and the Fund; the agreement was approved by the State Board of Workers' Compensation on January 9, 1979. The statutory funeral expenses and a bill for ambulance service were also paid by the carrier.
On January 25, 1979 appellee Carolyn Milam, the widow of Cordie and mother of Donald, acting individually and as guardian of Ricky Milam, Cordie's surviving son, requested a hearing on two separate claims before the State Board of Workers' Compensation, one to determine if Carolyn was dependent upon her son, Donald, and the other to determine if her husband, Cordie, was an employee and, thus, not a partner, in the joint venture known as Raines and Milam. On February 16, 1979 appellants received notice of these claims and on February 21, 1979 filed a notice (Form WC3) pursuant to Ga. Code § 114-705(d) that the right to compensation was controverted.
A hearing before the State Board of Workers' Compensation was held on appellees' motion to strike appellants' defense, based on appellants' failure to file notice of intention to controvert within 21 days after knowledge of the deaths. On July 5, 1979 the motion was denied by the Administrative Law Judge. On November 13, 1979 the ALJ denied appellees' claim, finding as a matter of fact that Carolyn Milam was not a dependent of Donald Milam, since both parents were employed and self-sufficient, and all of Donald's earnings were placed in a savings account for his college education.
The claim based on Cordie Milam's death was controverted by the employer and insurance carrier on the ground that the deceased was a partner in the business. Appellants here, as in the companion case, filed a Form WC3 more than 21 days after receiving notice of the death of Cordie Milam--in both instances approximately five and one-half months after the time specified in § 114-705(d). Appellees also filed a motion to strike appellants' defense in this case. The ALJ denied the motion and then found that Cordie Milam was a partner in Raines and Milam and, thus, not an employee. The ALJ's decision in both cases was approved by the State Board of Workers' Compensation, and was then appealed to the Superior Court of Fulton County.
The Superior Court in each case reversed the ALJ and the State Board, ruling that the ALJ and the Full Board "erred as a matter of law in failing to strike the defenses and to enter an award for the Claiments (sic) for failure of insurer-employer to timely enter a WC-3 notice to controvert under Georgia Code Annotated § 114-705(d)(h), because such failure to timely file a Notice to Controvert after a notice of accident and death is analoguous (sic) to a statute of limitations for a claim and acts as a statutory estoppel or bar to controvert; should the defense of the claim not be barred then the Full Board properly ruled in affirming the Administrative Law judge." We granted a discretionary appeal from the Superior Court's ruling.
Although no cross-appeal was filed we agree with the Superior Court that the evidence presented supports the ALJ's findings of fact, adopted by the Full Board as its findings in each case, and the conclusion that Carolyn Milam was not a dependent of Donald Milam and that Cordie Milam was not an employee. See Smith v. Travelers Ins. Co., 71 Ga.App. 24, 26, 29 S.E.2d 709 (1944) as to dependency, and Scoggins v. Aetna Cas., etc., Co., 139 Ga.App. 805, 229 S.E.2d 683 (1976) as to a partner being an employee.
The main issue in this case is whether appellants were estopped from controverting appellee's claims. Ga. Code § 114-705(d) provides: "If the employer controverts the right to compensation, it shall file with the board on or before the 21st day after knowledge of the alleged injury or death, a notice in accordance with the form prescribed by the board stating that the right of compensation is controverted ..., the date of the alleged injury or death, and the ground upon which the right to compensation is controverted."
Appellees contend that the word "shall" in the statute quoted above makes such notice mandatory, and failure to file such notice within 21 days requires the dismissal of any defense which the employer or insurer might present in controverting a claim. Appellees contend, in effect, that failure to file notice estops an employer and insurer from controverting a claim for compensation. We agree with appellees that the word "shall" in § 114-705(d) makes it mandatory that such notice be filed. We do not agree, however, that failure to file such notice within 21 days acts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cornell-Young (Macon Pre-Stressed Concrete Co.) v. Minter
...to the sanctions imposed by the code but do not effectuate an estoppel or cause a shift in the burden of proof. Raines & Milam v. Milam, 161 Ga.App. 860, 862, 289 S.E.2d 785; Holt Service Co. v. Modlin, 163 Ga.App. 283, 286, 293 S.E.2d 741; Kelley v. West Point Pepperell, 164 Ga.App. 187(2)......
-
Bright v. Nimmo
...could not be paid within the period prescribed." OCGA Sec. 34-9-108(b) makes provision for attorney fees. In Raines & Milam v. Milam, 161 Ga.App. 860, 289 S.E.2d 785 (1982), the employer failed to file a timely notice to controvert as is the situation in the case before us. The employee urg......
-
Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co. v. Hodges
...Ga.App. 130(1), 121 S.E.2d 258; Zurich Insurance Company v. Robinson, 127 Ga.App. 113(5), 192 S.E.2d 533. See also Raines & Milam v. Milam, 161 Ga.App. 860, 289 S.E.2d 785, holding that Code Ann. § 114-705, supra, is not a statute of limitation, a statutory estoppel or bar to contest issues......
-
Cartersville Ready Mix Co. v. Hamby, A96A0951
...that employers will routinely delay paying penalties, having no incentive to pay them promptly. Relying upon Raines & Milam v. Milam, 161 Ga.App. 860, 862, 289 S.E.2d 785 (1982), Cartersville Ready Mix also argues that it should not be barred from defending the claim simply because it faile......
-
Workers' Compensation - H. Michael Bagley, Daniel C. Kniffen, Katherine D. Dixon, and Marion H. Martin
...85. Meredith, 274 Ga. at 812, 561 S.E.2d at 69. 86. Id. 87. O.C.G.A. Sec. 34-9-221(h) (1998 & Supp. 2002). 88. Id. Sec. 34-9-221(d). 89. 161 Ga. App. 860, 289 S.E.2d 785 (1982). 90. 274 Ga. at 812, 561 S.E.2d at 69. 91. Id. 92. 161 Ga. App. at 862-63, 289 S.E.2d at 787. 93. 252 Ga. App. 549......