Legislative intent.

- It must be assumed that the General Assembly, in conferring the power of appointing guardians for minor claimants upon the board, intended that this power should be exercised in the same fashion or according to the same procedure as the orderly scheme of the compensation law. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rolax, 87 Ga. App. 733, 75 S.E.2d 205 (1953).

Duties of guardian.

- Guardian appointed by the board to the administration of workers' compensation benefits alone should exercise in respect to those benefits the same duties which any other regularly qualified guardian would be required to exercise in the guardian's administration of a minor's estate. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rolax, 87 Ga. App. 733, 75 S.E.2d 205 (1953).

Guardian, as provided by this section, was a necessary party on appeal to the Court of Appeals from a decision of a superior court affirming the award of the director granting compensation. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rolax, 87 Ga. App. 733, 75 S.E.2d 205 (1953).

Time of appointment.

- While the special guardian appointed in a workers' compensation proceeding was not appointed until the time of the award, the guardian's appointment at the time cured the defect and made such guardian a party to the case. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rolax, 87 Ga. App. 733, 75 S.E.2d 205 (1953).

Appointment by single director.

- When, in a proceeding for compensation, a single director finding that the claimant was a minor within the meaning of the workers' compensation laws, and, in making an award granting compensation, appointed a guardian to receive the compensation for the use and benefit of such minor, and no such appeal as was provided for in former Code 1933, § 114-708 (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-103) was entered, but an appeal was entered to the superior court, such appointment was valid, binding, and conclusive. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rolax, 87 Ga. App. 733, 75 S.E.2d 205 (1953).

Cited in St. Paul-Mercury Indem. Co. v. Robinson, 88 Ga. App. 217, 76 S.E.2d 512 (1953); Ross v. Brown, 121 Ga. App. 39, 172 S.E.2d 475 (1970).

ALR.

- Protection of interest or rights of minor in proceedings for, or award of, compensation under provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 120 A.L.R. 395.

Benefits terminated upon probation revocation hearing and determination.

- Just as an adjudication of guilt is necessary before benefits may be properly terminated when a claimant is charged with a crime, a probation revocation hearing must be held and a determination made that a probation violation has in fact occurred before a claimant's benefits may be terminated. When the record evidence, consisting primarily of the claimant's testimony, indicates that such a hearing was never held and that the claimant was simply held on the probation violation until it was determined that the charges against claimant were false, and the basis for revoking claimant's probation evaporated, the claimant was entitled to receive benefits for the entire period of claimant's incarceration. Sargent v. Brown, 186 Ga. App. 890, 368 S.E.2d 826 (1988).

ALR.

- Workers' compensation: incarceration as terminating benefits, 54 A.L.R.4th 241.