Constitutionality of former paragraph (g)(6).

- The provision of paragraph (g)(6), prior to the 1995 amendment, did not unconstitutionally mandate a workers' compensation administrative law judge to conclusively presume a finding of "catastrophic injury" solely because the claimant had been awarded Social Security disability benefits. Cobb County Sch. Dist. v. Barker, 271 Ga. 35, 518 S.E.2d 126 (1999).

Georgia State Board of Workers' Compensation could have found that an expert's testimony on accommodation jobs was in the context of a general discussion; as the expert testified that the workers' compensation claimant was capable of performing certain jobs, even considering the claimant's restrictions, the expert's testimony complied with Social Security Administration policy, which was applied in analyzing the testimony under the Georgia Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-200.1(g)(6). Davis v. Carter Mech., Inc., 272 Ga. App. 773, 612 S.E.2d 879 (2005).

Interpretation of "or" within

§ 34-9-200.1(g)(6). - Trial court properly reversed a decision by the Georgia Workers' Compensation Appellate Division and reinstated a decision of an administrative law judge who found that an employee suffered a "catastrophic injury" for purposes of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-200.1(g)(6), as the employee was unable to perform the prior work done, although the employee was able to perform other work available in substantial numbers within the national economy; the relevant provision of § 34-9-200.1(g)(6) used "or" between the two types of work that an employee could perform rather than "and" and that phraseology was deemed unambiguous, plain, and capable of having only one meaning, based on statutory interpretation rules under O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1(a) and legislative changes over time to § 34-9-200.1(g)(6). Rite-Aid Corp. v. Davis, 280 Ga. App. 522, 634 S.E.2d 480 (2006).

Provision of handicap-accessible housing.

- O.C.G.A. § 34-9-200.1 permits the Workers' Compensation Board to require the employer to provide handicap-accessible housing to an injured employee. Pringle v. Mayor of Savannah, 223 Ga. App. 751, 478 S.E.2d 139 (1996).

Superior court erred in reversing the decision of the Appellate Division of the State Board of Workers' Compensation because the Board properly determined that the employer was not obligated to build a wheelchair-accessible home for the employee on property that the employee owned and that the employer could meet the employer's obligations under relevant provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act and Board rules by providing the employee a life estate in a suitable home while retaining title to the property in fee simple; while the Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-200.1(a), and Ga. Bd. Workers' Comp. R. 200.1(a)(5)(ii) clearly provide for employer-provided housing to the catastrophically injured employee, neither explicitly requires that such housing be provided to the employee in fee simple. S. Concrete/Watkins Associated Indus. v. Spires, Ga. App. , S.E.2d (Mar. 22, 2011).

Appointment of rehabilitation supplier.

- When employee awarded workers' compensation benefits petitioned the board for the appointment of a rehabilitation supplier and requested a particular supplier by name, and the employer objected to the award and appealed to the full board, the court found that the board exceeded its authority in appointing a specific rehabilitation supplier without first giving the employer notice and an opportunity to name the supplier. Walden v. Cutlery Corp., 190 Ga. App. 363, 378 S.E.2d 697 (1989).

Working claimant may still need services.

- Mere fact that claimant was able to work at a job "suitable to his impaired condition" did not mean that claimant was not in need of medical, psychological, or vocational services, when claimant was still physically impaired as a result of claimant's compensable injury and had not found suitable work. Jackson v. Peachtree Hous. Div., 187 Ga. App. 612, 371 S.E.2d 112, cert. denied, 187 Ga. App. 907, 370 S.E.2d 194 (1988).

Discretion of board to suspend or reduce compensation.

- Even upon a finding of refusal to accept vocational rehabilitation (cooperate) without reasonable cause, the board is merely authorized to alter the compensation "in its discretion" unless in its "opinion" the "circumstances justify the refusal." These broad avenues of discretion are limited only by the standard in O.C.G.A. § 34-9-240, which requires cessation of compensation when a suitable job is procured and an employee unjustifiably refuses it. Carod Bldg. Servs. v. Williams, 182 Ga. App. 340, 355 S.E.2d 723 (1987).

Authority of Board.

- Appellate Division of the State Board of Workers' Compensation had the authority to award a life estate to an employer because no dispute as to the title of land was foreseeable in the future, and the Board did not exercise authority reserved to the superior court alone, but rather, the Board simply exercised the Board's broad authority to craft a reasonable remedy; the Board's Rehabilitation Guidelines require that all issues of ownership and maintenance be resolved before any construction begins. S. Concrete/Watkins Associated Indus. v. Spires, Ga. App. , S.E.2d (Mar. 22, 2011).

Presumption from receipt of Social Security benefits rebutted.

- After the State Board of Workers' Compensation denied an employee's request to have the employee's back injury designated catastrophic, based on evidence that the employee could perform light duty and sedentary work, a trial court should have affirmed that determination because there was evidence in the record to support it; the presumption of catastrophic injury which arose upon the award to the employee of Social Security disability benefits, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 34-9-200.1(g)(6), was adequately rebutted by the evidence. Jered Indus. v. Pearson, 261 Ga. App. 373, 582 S.E.2d 522 (2003).

While the employer's expert did not take into account all of the limitations identified by the claimant's expert, the discrepancy went to the weight to be accorded the expert's report and not to its competence; it was in the province of the Georgia State Board of Workers' Compensation to determine whether the experts considered the appropriate factors. Davis v. Carter Mech., Inc., 272 Ga. App. 773, 612 S.E.2d 879 (2005).

Expert testimony complied with statutory requirements.

- Employer's expert's testimony complied with O.C.G.A. § 34-9-200.1(g)(6), even though the expert did not testify that the jobs that were identified for the workers' compensation claimant were available; the Georgia legislature's use of the term "availability" in § 34-9-200.1(g)(6) is not intended to require a showing beyond proof that work exists in substantial numbers within the national economy. Davis v. Carter Mech., Inc., 272 Ga. App. 773, 612 S.E.2d 879 (2005).

Employee's age as a consideration.

- Because an employee's age was one of the issues considered by an ALJ in reaching a decision that the employee's injuries were catastrophic under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-200.1(g)(6), and such was also considered in a rehabilitation expert's opinion, the superior court's finding that age was not properly considered was simply unfounded and thus, reversible error. Caswell, Inc. v. Spencer, 280 Ga. App. 141, 633 S.E.2d 449 (2006).

Catastrophic injury finding supported.

- Administrative law judge's findings with respect to a determination that an employee suffered a "catastrophic injury" pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 34-9-200.1(g)(6) were supported by competent and credible evidence contained within the record and, accordingly, a court's obligation on judicial review was to confirm that finding; the employee was unable to perform prior work as a store manager, merchandiser, or cashier due to the neck and shoulder injuries, although the employee could perform sedentary jobs available in substantial numbers in the national economy, but the inability to perform the employee's work alone sufficed under the unambiguous provisions of § 34-9-200.1(g)(6) to warrant relief. Rite-Aid Corp. v. Davis, 280 Ga. App. 522, 634 S.E.2d 480 (2006).

Catastrophic injury finding not supported.

- Trial court's reversal of a State Board of Workers' Compensation decision finding that a claimant had a catastrophic injury was upheld on appeal since there was no competent evidence before the board of the unavailability of work within the national economy for which the claimant was otherwise qualified; the board concluded that the claimant's injury was catastrophic based solely on its own experience, which the board was without authority to do without considering whether the claimant was unable to perform any work available in substantial numbers within the national economy. Reid v. Ga. Bldg. Auth., 283 Ga. App. 413, 641 S.E.2d 642 (2007).

Superior court erred in reversing the decision of the Appellate Division of the State Board of Workers' Compensation to overrule an administrative law judge's (ALJ) finding that an employee sustained a catastrophic injury under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-200.1(g) because the Appellate Division performed the appropriate review pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 34-9-103(a), and the superior court erred in finding that the Appellate Division committed legal error by improperly applying a de novo standard of review to the ALJ's findings of fact; after weighing the evidence received by the ALJ, the Appellate Division concluded that the preponderance of the competent and credible evidence did not support the ALJ's catastrophic injury finding, and thus, the Appellate Division substituted the Division's own findings for those of the ALJ, as the Division was authorized to do. Bonus Stores, Inc. v. Hensley, 309 Ga. App. 129, 710 S.E.2d 201 (2011).

Because the finding of the Appellate Division of the State Board of Workers' Compensation that an employee's injuries were not catastrophic was supported by some evidence, the superior court erred in weighing the evidence and in substituting the court's judgment for that of the Appellate Division; the findings of an orthopedist who evaluated the employee and other doctors, together with a spine specialist's written assessment and testimony, provided evidence that at least by the time of the Appellate Division's judgment, the employee's back injury was not of a nature and severity that the injury prevented the employee from being able to perform any work available in substantial numbers within the national economy for which the employee was otherwise qualified. Bonus Stores, Inc. v. Hensley, 309 Ga. App. 129, 710 S.E.2d 201 (2011).

Superior court erred in affirming a decision to deny an employee's request to designate the injury the employee sustained while working for an employer as catastrophic pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 34-9-200.1(g)(6)(A) because the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred by making a determination as to the compensability of the employee's lower back pain when that issue was not before the ALJ; there was no evidence that the employee had notice and an opportunity to be heard on the issue of compensability or that the employee gave implied consent to trial of that issue. Harris v. Eastman Youth Dev. Ctr., 315 Ga. App. 643, 727 S.E.2d 254 (2012).

Untimely request for catastrophic injury designation.

- Driver's claim for catastrophic designation of an injury was time-barred under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-104(b) because, inasmuch as the driver sought additional income benefits, the driver had two years from the date of the last income benefits payment to file the WC-R1CATEE claim form for a catastrophic injury designation, but failed to do so; the driver's earlier filing of a WC-14 form did not toll the statute of limitation because the only benefits sought in the driver's WC-14 form were temporary disability benefits. There was no request for a catastrophic injury designation in the WC-14 form. Kroger Co. v. Wilson, 301 Ga. App. 345, 687 S.E.2d 586 (2009), cert. denied, No. S10C0606, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 341 (Ga. 2010).

Liability in connection with peer review duties.

- Employees of the Rehabilitation Department of State Board of Workers' Compensation performing "peer review" duties are afforded the same protection from liability for their actions as other public officers in the executive branch of state government. 1986 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 86-46.

Employee performing peer review duties would be entitled to representation by the state in any action arising out of the performance of the employee's official duties. 1986 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 86-46.

Protection of members of peer review panel.

- Person who is a private rehabilitation supplier serving on a peer review panel for the State Board of Workers' Compensation would not be afforded the statutory protection provided in O.C.G.A. § 31-7-130, et seq., which relates to peer review groups evaluating the quality and efficiency of professional health care providers, regardless of whether that peer review committee conformed to the model promulgated by the National Association of Rehabilitation Professionals. 1987 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 87-4.

ALR.

- Workers' compensation: vocational rehabilitation statutes, 67 A.L.R.4th 612.