O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 34-9-6 (2019)

Retroactive inclusion of state and departments in definition of ‘‘employer’’; resumption of payments of awards previously discontinued

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
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.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

So far as concerns the State of Georgia or any department thereof which has been operating under the terms of this chapter, the state and such departments thereof shall be deemed to have been included in the original Act under the definition of ‘‘employer.’’ Any payments heretofore made under awards of the Industrial Board to state employees are ratified and confirmed and any payments of awards which were being made by the state or any of its departments on or before February 1, 1943, but discontinued because of exclusion of the state and its departments from the definition of ‘‘employer’’ shall be resumed as of the date of discontinuance; and compensable accidents which occurred prior to the passage of this chapter for which awards were not made but for which awards are hereafter made shall be paid by the state or the departments thereof in the same manner as other awards heretofore or hereafter made.

History

(Code 1933, § 114-101.1, enacted by Ga. L. 1943, p. 401, § 2.)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Constitutionality. - As to the constitutionality of this section, see State Hwy.

Dep’t v. Bass, 197 Ga. 356, 29 S.E.2d 161 (1944).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1984–1984 · leading case: Flossie Marie Massey v. United States, 733 F.2d 760 (11th Cir. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Flossie Marie Massey v. United States, 733 F.2d 760 (11th Cir. 1984). “Godbee ignored Evans and announced the rule that OCGA § 34-9-6(a) pertains to any employer who hires another to perform work, regardless of whether he is an owner rather than a contractor.”
— 34-9-6(a) — 1 case
Flossie Marie Massey v. United States, 733 F.2d 760 (11th Cir. 1984). “Godbee ignored Evans and announced the rule that OCGA § 34-9-6(a) pertains to any employer who hires another to perform work, regardless of whether he is an owner rather than a contractor.”
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.