O.C.G.A.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
The State Board of Workers’ Compensation shall exercise all powers and perform all the duties relating to the enforcement of this chapter.
History
(Code 1933, § 114-701.6, enacted by Ga. L. 1975, p. 198, § 6.)
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Exclusiveness of remedies. - Tort action by workers against health care providers who billed the workers for medical services in violation of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-205 was properly dismissed since the complaints were grounded upon an alleged violation of the Workers’ Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., and therefore redress was through the workers’ compensation remedies. Mullis v. NC-CNH, Inc., 218 Ga. App. 332, 461 S.E.2d 237 (1995). Scope of authority. - Insurer’s argument that there should be an exception to the rule making declaratory judgments unavailable when there was no future act to which such a judgment could be applied had to be rejected; the premise for the exception was that the State Board of Workers’ Compensation (board) lacked subject matter jurisdiction to resolve the underlying coverage issue, but, in fact, the board had the authority to resolve ancillary issues such as workers’ compensation insurance coverage. Builders Ins. Group, Inc. v. Ker-Wil Enters., 274 Ga. App. 522, 618 S.E.2d 160 (2005).
Board did not have exclusive jurisdiction. - State Board of Workers’ Compensation did not have exclusive jurisdiction over medical care providers’ claim against a network administrator as the breach of contract claim did not bear an ancillary relationship to the determination of the employees’ statutory workers’ compensation rights; rather, the claim alleged a systemic failure within the network. Aetna Workers’ Comp Access, LLC v. Coliseum Med. Ctr., 322 Ga. App. 641, 746 S.E.2d 148 (2013). Enact and interpret rules. - Because an attorney who represented a workers’ compensation claimant for eight years prior to new counsel taking over the case failed to serve a copy of Form WC-108b on claimant’s new counsel as required by Ga. Bd. Workers’ Comp. R. 108(e), the Appellate Division of the Board of Workers’ Compensation did not err in finding that the claimant’s lien for attorney’s fees was not perfected and the claimant was not entitled to attorney’s fees. Monk v. Parker, 331 Ga. App. 736, 771 S.E.2d 424 (2015).
RESEARCH REFERENCES C.J.S. - 100 C.J.S., Workers’ Compensation, §§ 809 et seq., 815 et seq., 821 et seq.
Notes of Decisions
Arby's Restaurant Grp., Inc. v. McRae, 734 S.E.2d 55 (Ga. 2012).
· cites it 2× “See OCGA § 34-9-58 (board “shall exercise all powers and perform all the duties relating to the enforcement of [the Act]”).”
Aetna Workers' Comp Access, LLC v. Coliseum Med. Ctr., 746 S.E.2d 148 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “) OCGA § 34-9-58 provides: “The State Board of Workers’ Compensation shall exercise all powers and perform all duties relating to the enforcement of this chapter.”
Builders Ins. Grp., Inc. v. Ker-Wil Enter. Inc., 618 S.E.2d 160 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “” OCGA § 34-9-58. Under the Act, an “Employer” is defined to include the employer’s workers’ compensation “insurer as far as applicable.”
Smart Prof'l Photocopy Corp. v. Dixon, 456 S.E.2d 233 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 34-9-58 provides that the State Board is the body statutorily charged with the enforcement of the Act.”
Monk v. Parker Et Al., 771 S.E.2d 424 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Former counsel contends that the Appellate Division erred in its “legal interpretation” of Board Rule 108 (e) by failing to uphold the ALJ’s determination that Current Counsel had waived the service requirement. He further argues that, “[b]y failing to uphold the initial finding…”
Mullis v. NC-CNH, Inc., 461 S.E.2d 237 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 34-9-58 provides: “The State Board of Workers’ Compensation shall exercise all powers and perform all the duties relating to the enforcement of this chapter.”
Smith Et Al. v. Williams Et Al., 775 S.E.2d 639 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “”)____ The Board performs all the powers and duties relating to the enforcement of the Workers’ Compensation Act (the “Act”), and the Act shall be liberally construed only for the purpose of bringing employers and employees within the provisions of this chapter and to provide…”
Travelers Indem. Co. v. Coliseum Med. Ctr., LLC D/B/A Coliseum Med. Centers (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “Although the Providers’ claim against Aetna is clearly not one between an employer and employee under the Act, that does not end the inquiry of whether the 10 OCGA § 34-9-58 provides: “The State Board of Workers’ Compensation shall exercise all powers and perform all duties…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.