Thompson v. Wilbert Vault Co.
| Citation | 178 Ga.App. 489,343 S.E.2d 515 |
| Decision Date | 21 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 72123,72123 |
| Parties | THOMPSON v. WILBERT VAULT COMPANY et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Rudolph J. Chambless, Waycross, for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, Jr., Brunswick, for appellees.
This is an appeal by the claimant in a workers' compensation case.
The appellant's right leg was amputated below the knee as the result of a compensable injury which occurred on June 15, 1977. Since then, the employer and insurer have furnished him with an original and one replacement prosthesis, or artificial leg. Both these evidently wore out; and, acting pursuant to the direction of his physician, the appellant purchased a third prosthesis on July 26, 1984, for $1,800. This claim arises from the refusal of the employer and insurer to compensate him for this expense.
The administrative law judge denied the appellant's claim based on the then existing version of OCGA § 34-9-200, which provided in pertinent part, as follows: "(a) The employer shall furnish the employee entitled to benefits under this chapter compensation for costs of such medical, surgical, and hospital care, and vocational rehabilitation and other treatment, including medical and surgical supplies, original artificial members, prosthetic devices, and aids, and replacement of artificial members, prosthetic devices, and aids damaged or destroyed in a compensable accident, which in the judgment of the State Board of Workers' Compensation shall be reasonably required and appear likely to effect a cure, give relief, or restore the employee to suitable employment..." (Emphasis supplied). The full board reversed the ALJ and granted the claim, ruling that "[t]he requirement that employer/insurer shall provide 'original' prosthetic devises does not eliminate the coequal duty to provide such care and treatment as may be necessary to '... effect a cure, give relief, or restore the employee to a suitable employment...' "
Shortly before the full board issued its award, OCGA § 34-9-200(a), supra, was amended to read as follows: "The employer shall furnish the employee entitled to benefits under this chapter compensation for costs of such medical, surgical, and hospital care and other treatment, items, and services which are prescribed by a licensed physician, including ... artificial members, prosthetic devices, and aids damaged or destroyed in a compensable accident, which in the judgment of the State Board of Worker's Compensation shall be reasonably required and appear likely to effect a cure, give relief, or restore the employee to suitable employment." Ga.L.1985, pp. 727, 730, § 3. Although in a literal sense the statute is now virtually nonsensical insofar as it relates to the provision of prosthetic devices, the parties appear to be in agreement that the intended effect of the amendment was simply to delete the term "original" from the code section, so as to make the employer responsible for any and all artificial members, prosthetic devices and aids deemed necessary by the board to effect a cure, give relief, or restore the 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 did not require the provision of a replacement prosthesis unless the original were itself damaged or destroyed in a compensable accident, the court thus reversed the board and denied the appellant's claim. We granted the appellant's subsequent application to this court for a discretionary appeal. Held:
In Hall v. Hartford Ins. Group, supra, this court held that where retroactive application of a rule promulgated subsequent to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Federal Paper Bd. Co. v. Harbert-Yeargin, Inc.
-
Barnes v. City of Atlanta Police Dept.
...scope of treatment required to be provided for an injury the compensability of which is not in question." Thompson v. Wilbert Vault Co., 178 Ga.App. 489, 491, 343 S.E.2d 515 (1986). Since the statutory amendment at issue is remedial, it should be given retroactive Although the amended statu......
-
Banks v. ICI Americas, Inc.
...is favored. E.g., Luddington v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., 966 F.2d 225, 228 (7th Cir.1992); compare Thompson v. Wilbert Vault Co., 178 Ga.App. 489, 491, 343 S.E.2d 515 (1986) (principle against retroactive application of statutes) with Otis Elevator Co. v. Tanner, 208 Ga.App. 417, 430 S.E.2d 6......
- Garrett v. Nelson, Civil Action No. 1:10cv23–WHA.