Syfert Injury Law Firm
Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448The written notice provided for in Code Section 34-9-80 shall state in ordinary language the name and address of the employee, the time, place, nature, and cause of the accident and of the resulting injury or death and shall be signed by the employee or by a person in his behalf or, in the event of his death, by any one or more of his dependents or by a person in their behalf. No defect or inaccuracy in the notice shall be a bar to compensation unless the employer shall prove that his interest was prejudiced thereby, and then only to the extent of the prejudice. Such notice shall be given personally to the employer, or his agent, representative, or foreman, or to the immediate superior of the injured employee or may be sent by registered or certified mail or statutory overnight delivery addressed to the employer at his last known residence or place of business.
(Ga. L. 1920, p. 167, §§ 23, 24; Ga. L. 1923, p. 92, §§ 1, 2; Code 1933, § 114-304; Ga. L. 2000, p. 1589, § 3.)
Notice of an injury need not be given with a view to a claim of compensation at the time it is given, a notice is sufficient which will put the employer on notice of the injury so that the employer may make an investigation if the employer sees fit to do so, and an employee should not be penalized because the employee did not consider the injury serious enough to immediately contend that the employee was entitled to compensation. Coulter v. Royal Indem. Co., 95 Ga. App. 124, 97 S.E.2d 358, rev'd, 213 Ga. 277, 98 S.E.2d 899 (1957). But see Schwartz v. Greenbaum, 236 Ga. 476, 224 S.E.2d 38 (1976).
Required notice need not be given with a view to claiming compensation and is sufficient if it puts the employer on notice of the injury so that it may make an investigation if it sees fit to do so. Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Cline, 138 Ga. App. 778, 227 S.E.2d 405 (1976).
If an employer fails to show it has been prejudiced by the failure of the written notice of a claim to state the place when the accident occurred, the defective notice will not bar compensation. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Tribble, 119 Ga. App. 120, 166 S.E.2d 410 (1969).
If the written notice of a claim fails to state the place when the accident occurred and there is an immediate request from the board for that information, a delay of one year and a half in giving the place of the accident is not equivalent to request that the employer not be notified of the hearing. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Tribble, 119 Ga. App. 120, 166 S.E.2d 410 (1969).
Fact that the letter of notice requested that no hearing be had until specifically requested by the claimant does not prevent the letter from being a proper claim. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Tribble, 119 Ga. App. 120, 166 S.E.2d 410 (1969).
Since a claimant was uneducated and did not understand the difference between insurance and workers' compensation, the claimant would not be estopped from receiving the benefits of the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.). Coulter v. Royal Indem. Co., 95 Ga. App. 124, 97 S.E.2d 358, rev'd on other grounds, 213 Ga. 277, 98 S.E.2d 899 (1957).
- In view of the fact that the claimant and the claimant's spouse were ignorant regarding the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.) and the possible benefits to be derived therefrom, the law must be construed to take care of this humane element particularly in view of the fact that the claimant and claimant's spouse did very well indeed in giving notice. Coulter v. Royal Indem. Co., 95 Ga. App. 124, 97 S.E.2d 358, rev'd on other grounds, 213 Ga. 277, 98 S.E.2d 899 (1957).
While the statute does not prescribe any particular form of claim for compensation to be filed by an injured employee, yet it cannot be held that a letter which did not ask for any hearing, but indicated that an offer of compensation had theretofore been received by the employee, and the answer of the commission that the employee was entitled to a certain sum per week during disability, and which was written five years before the employee appeared before the commission and urged that the employee was entitled to compensation, and three years after the employee reached the age of 18, constituted such a claim as was contemplated by the lawmakers would be filed by a claimant under the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.). Folsom v. American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 48 Ga. App. 831, 173 S.E. 878 (1934).
Cited in Threatt v. American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 173 Ga. 350, 160 S.E. 379 (1931); GMC v. Pruitt, 83 Ga. App. 620, 64 S.E.2d 339 (1951); Davison-Paxon Co. v. Ford, 88 Ga. App. 890, 78 S.E.2d 257 (1953); Georgia Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Cochran, 127 Ga. App. 55, 192 S.E.2d 547 (1972); McElhannon v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 141 Ga. App. 169, 233 S.E.2d 28 (1977).
Period of time a person has been retired from or has not been employed by a school system would not be of any particular significance as to a former employer's workers' compensation coverage; this is not to say that there are not notice of accident filing requirements and filing of claim requirements which must be complied with in order for an employee or former employee to make a proper claim for compensation. 1977 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 77-38.
- 82 Am. Jur. 2d, Workers' Compensation, § 495 et seq.
- 100 C.J.S., Workers' Compensation, §§ 958, 959.
- Workmen's compensation: duty of injured employee to submit to an examination, 41 A.L.R. 866.
Requirement of Workmen's Compensation Act as to notice of accident or injury, 92 A.L.R. 505; 107 A.L.R. 815; 145 A.L.R. 1263.
Workmen's compensation: injury to servant who lives on employer's premises as arising out of and in the course of the employment, 158 A.L.R. 606.
No results found for Georgia Code 34-9-81.