St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Bridges, 39683
| Decision Date | 24 September 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 39683,No. 3,39683,3 |
| Citation | 127 S.E.2d 699,106 Ga.App. 621 |
| Parties | ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO. et al. v. Otis BRIDGES et al. . Division |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
Where the employer and his insurance carrier enter into an agreement with an employee for the payment of compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the agreement is approved by the board, it becomes res judicata in the absence of fraud, accident or mistake, and the board has no jurisdiction, even within the 30-day period after approval provided for appeals, to vacate, modify or change the agreement or the order approving it, save and except as is provided by Code Ann. § 114-709.
Wainer Brothers, Inc. and its insurer, St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, submitted to the Workmen's Compensation Board for approval an agreement which they had entered into with Otis Bridges for the payment of compensation due to a compensable injury. The agreement was duly approved on August 29, 1960. Thereafter, on September 28, 1960, both companies filed with the board a motion to vacate and set aside the approved agreement on the ground of mistake. It was alleged that the claimant, Bridges, was in truth and in fact working for Wainer Construction Company, Inc. at the time of his injury, that its insurer was Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and that this fact had been inadvertently overlooked when the agreement was entered into and submitted for approval. Pursuant to this motion the full board entered an order vacating the approval of the agreement and assigned the matter for hearing, thereafter held by a deputy director on April 20, 1961. Bridges, the claimant, appeared at the hearing unrepresented by counsel, and testified. Wainer Construction Company, Inc. and its insurer appeared specially, moving to quash to order of September 28, 1960, and objecting to the hearing. The motion and objections were overruled and after the hearing an award was made based upon findings that in reality Bridges was working for both Wainer Brothers, Ins. and Wainer Construction Company, Inc. at the time of his injury and that compensation for his injury should be apportioned to and paid by both. Both companies and their insurers appealed to the full board, where, after a review of the record, an order was entered vacating the deputy director's award against both companies and findings were made that at the time of the injury Bridges had been an employee of Wainer Brothers, Inc. by virtue of its agreement, and that the motion to vacate and set aside the approval of the agreement had been improperly granted because of lack of jurisdiction in the board to do so. Compensation was accordingly awarded to Bridges pursuant to the agreement which had been filed and approved. Upon appeal to the superior court the award of the full board was affirmed, and error is here assigned upon that judgment.
Smith, Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hancock, Glover McGhee, Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.
Tillman & Brice, B. Lamar Tillman, Valdosta, for defendants in error.
There is really only one question for decision here, viz., whether the Workmen's Compensation Board has jurisdiction within 30 days after the unconditional approval of an agreement for the payment of compensation to entertain and grant a motion to vacate and set asid the approval (and the agreement) upon the ground of fraud, accident or mistake.
The board is an administrative body, having no jurisdiction beyond that granted to it by the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. It has heretofore been held that the jurisdiction granted under the Act does not extend to the board power to vacate or set aside such an order, or to modify it in the absence of a 'change of condition.' Teems v. American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., 41 Ga.App. 100(1), 151 S.E. 826; Simpson v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 99 Ga.App. 629(2), 109 S.E.2d 876; Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Simpson, 101 Ga.App. 480(3), 114 S.E.2d 141; National Union Ins. Co. v. Mills, 99 Ga.App. 697, 109 S.E.2d 830; Arnold v. Indemnity Ins. Co., 94 Ga.App. 493(3), 95 S.E.2d 29; Dempsey v. Chevrolet Division, 102 Ga.App. 408, 116 S.E.2d 509; United States Casualty Co. v. Smith, 34 Ga.App. 363(1), 129 S.E. 880; Gravitt v. Georgia Casualty Co., 158 Ga. 613(1), 123 S.E. 897; Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Davis
...supra, 106 Ga.App. at 399, 126 S.E.2d at 915, footnote 1. The other end of the spectrum is illustrated by St. Paul Fire Ins. Co. v. Bridges, 106 Ga.App. 621, 127 S.E.2d 699 where it was held that an approved award could not be modified on the grounds of fraud, accident or mistake even withi......
-
Hanover Ins. Co. v. Jones
...established rules for attacking and setting aside a judgment, obtain his relief in a court of equity." St. Paul Fire &c. Ins. Co. v. Bridges, 106 Ga.App. 621, 622, 127 S.E.2d 699, 701-702. From that which is quoted from the Bridges case it is clear that the State Board of Workers' Compensat......
-
Wills v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
...629, 109 S.E.2d 876 (1959); Baker v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 103 Ga.App. 100, 118 S.E.2d 386 (1961); St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Bridges, 106 Ga.App. 621, 127 S.E.2d 699 (1962); Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Crowder, 123 Ga.App. 469, 181 S.E.2d 530 (1971); Robinson v. Zurich Ins. Co., 13......
-
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Barden, 72169
...that such is a matter that addresses itself to the General Assembly if it is to be accomplished....' St. Paul Fire etc. Ins. Co. v. Bridges, 106 Ga.App. 621, 622, 127 S.E.2d 699 [ (1962) ]." Hanover Ins. Co. v. Jones, supra 148 Ga.App. at 238-39, 251 S.E.2d ...