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 board is empowered and authorized to adopt proper rules of procedure to govern the exercise of its functions and hearings before the board or any of its members or administrative law judges.
History
(Code 1933, § 114-701.7, enacted by Ga. L. 1975, p. 198, § 6; Ga. L. 1988, p. 1679, § 13.)
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Board exceeded authority. - State Board of Workers’ Compensation exceeded its rule-making authority, as a matter of law, in creating an unpublished rule of appellate procedure that was inconsistent with O.C.G.A. § 34-9-103(b). MARTA v.
Reid, 282 Ga. App. 877, 640 S.E.2d 300 (2006). Board did not exceed authority. - State Board of Workers’ Compensation did not exceed the board’s authority under O.C.G.A. §§ 34-9-59 and 34-9-60(a) when
the board promulgated Ga. Bd. Workers’ Comp. R. 205 as it was not burden-shifting and it did not interfere with the substantive rights of the parties. Mulligan v. Selective HR Solutions, Inc., 289 Ga. 753, 716 S.E.2d 150 (2011). Power to 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 attorney’s lien for attorney’s fees was not perfected and the attorney 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, §§ 828, 829.
Notes of Decisions
Mulligan v. Selective Hr Solutions, Inc., 716 S.E.2d 150 (Ga. 2011).
· cites it 2× “As the Court of Appeals had previously and correctly observed: Under OCGA § 34-9-59, the Board is empowered and authorized to adopt proper rules of procedure to govern the exercise of its functions and hearings before the [B]oard or any of its members or administrative law…”
Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth. v. Reid, 640 S.E.2d 300 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “Under OCGA§ 34-9-59, the Board is “empowered and authorized to adopt proper rules of procedure to govern the exercise of its functions and hearings before the [B]oard or any of its members or administrative law judges.”
Monk v. Parker Et Al., 771 S.E.2d 424 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “3 After observing that the legislature had granted the Board the authority under OCGA § 34-9-59 to adopt rules of procedure to govern the exercise of its functions, the Appellate Division held: With regard to an attorney fee lien, if an employee and/or his attorney terminate…”
Technical Coll. Sys. v. McGruder, 756 S.E.2d 702 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Selective HR Solutions, 6 the Supreme Court of Georgia addressed a similar argument with regard to Board Rule 205, 7 reiterating that [ujnder OCGA § 34-9-59, the Boardis empowered and authorized to adopt proper rules of procedure to govern the exercise of its functions and…”
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.