Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY et al. v. SAMS.

The order of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation authorizing a change of physician not being appealable, the appeal is dismissed.

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 12, 1967 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 27, 1967 — REHEARING DENIED OCTOBER 19, 1967 — CERT. APPLIED FOR.

The State Board of Workmen's Compensation entered an award in which it found that the claimant was disabled and entitled to compensation benefits. Subsequent to the award becoming final, the claimant filed a request for a change of physicians. The employer opposed the change and sought a hearing on the question. The board declined to have a hearing and entered an order granting the claimant's request.

The employer appeals from the judgment of the superior court affirming the full board and the case is here for review.

QUILLIAN, Judge.

The employer contends that it was entitled to hearing before the board to determine whether the claimant was entitled to a change of physicians. With this contention we can not agree. Code Ann. § 114-501 (as last amended by Ga. L. 1963, pp. 141, 153), provides in part: "The Board may at any time upon request of an employee order a change of physician or treatment and designate other treatment or another physician as suggested by the injured employee subject to the approval of the board, and in such a case the expense thereof shall be borne by the employer upon the same terms and conditions as hereinbefore provided in this section for medical and surgical treatment and attendance." There is no provision in the Act for a hearing on the question of whether the claimant shall be authorized to change physicians. The board's order in the case sub judice is not such an order as is contemplated by Code § 114-710, which provides for appeals to the superior court.

This case is distinguishable from Travelers Ins. Co. v. Burch, 114 Ga. App. 723 ( 152 S.E.2d 697), and similar cases which involved the contestable question of whether the claimants were entitled to further medical benefits.

While the appeal was improvidently allowed there was no harmful error shown in the judgment affirming the board's order.

Appeal dismissed. Jordan, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. SAMS
(Sep 27, 1967)