In th e S u p re m e Co u rt o f Ge o rg ia

De c id e d: S e p te m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 1 4

S 1 3 G1 8 1 2 . MARTA v

. REID.

THOMP S O N, Ch ie f Ju stic e

.

We g ra nte d a writ of c e rtio ra ri to th e Co u rt o f A p p ea l s in Re id v

.

MARTA, 3 23 Ga

. Ap p

. 5 2 3 (7 4 6 S E2 d 7 7 9 ) ( 2 0 1 3 ), a nd p o se d th is q u e stio n :

Did th e Co u rt o f A p p e a ls e rr in h old in g th a t th e p ro p e r sta tu te o f lim ita tio n s fo r

a c la im o f sta tu to ry p e n a ltie s f o r la te b e n e fits p a y m e nts in wo rk e rs’

c o m p e nsa tio n c a se s u n d e r OCGA § 34 -9 -2 2 1 is th e g e n e ra l sta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s, OCGA § 34 -9 -8 2

, ra th e r th an th e c h a n g e i n c on d itio n sta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s, OCGA § 3 4 -9 -1 0 4 (b )? We a n swe r th is q u e stio n a ffirm a tiv e ly

.

Th e fa c ts a re n ot in d isp u te : F o llo w in g a n in ju ry in O c to b e r 1 9 9 9

,

e m p lo y e e file d a c la im fo r wo rk e rs’ c o m p e n sa tio n be n e fits. S h o rtly th e re a fte r,

e m p lo y e r b e g a n p a y in g th e fi r s t o f 3 2 pa y m e n ts of te m p o ra ry to ta l d isa b ility

b e n e fits. Twe lv e o f th e p a y m e n ts we re u ntim e ly u nd e r th e te rm s of th e wo rk e rs’

c o m p e nsa tio n sta tu te

. E m

p lo y e e re tu rn e d to w o rk in Ju n e 2 0 0 2 a n d h is b e n e fitswe re s u s p e n d e d a t th a t tim e

. Ne a rly e ig h t y e a rs la te r, e m p lo y e e d e m a n d e d

p a y m e n t o f th e sta tu to ry p e n a ltie s d u e o n th e 1 2 la te pa y me n t s

. 1 Em p lo y e r

re fu se d th e d e m a n d , a sse rtin g it wa s tim e b a rre d

.

Em p lo y e e so u g h t a h e a rin g a n d an ord e r re q u irin g e m p lo y e r to p a y th e

sta tu to ry p e n a ltie s o we d

. T h e a d m in istra tiv e la w ju d g e de te rm in e d e m p lo y e e ’s

c la im wa s a “ c h a n g e in c o n d itio n ” c la im u n d e r OCGA § 3 4 -9 -1 0 4

, a n d

,

th e re fo re , ba rre d u n d e r th e two -y e ar lim ita tio n p e rio d se t fo rth in OCGA § 3 4 -9

-

1 0 4 ( b ). 2 Th e Ap p e lla te Div isio n o f th e S ta te Bo a rd an d th e su p e rio r c o urt

a g re e d. Th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls g ra n te d e m p lo y e e ’s a

p plic a tio n fo r d isc re tio n a ry

re v ie w an d re v e rse d th e ju d g m e n t of th e su p e rio r c o u rt, fin d in g e m p lo y e e ’s

c la im fo r sta tu to ry p e n a ltie s is n o t g o v e rn e d b y a n y lim it a t i o n p e rio d a n d

,

1 See OCGA § 3 4-9-221 (e) which provides, in part: “If any incom e benef i ts pay able
without an award are not paid w hen due, there shall be added to t he accrued incom e benef its

an a m ount equal to 1 5 p ercent t hereof

, which shall b e paid at the sam e tim e as, but in addition to, the accrued incom e benef its . . .”

2 This provision reads, in pertinent part: “ The board on its own m otion m ay propose

or any party m ay apply under t his Code section f or another decision because of a change in
condition ending, decreasing, increas ing, or authorizing the recovery of i ncom e benef its
awarded or ordered in the prior f inal decision, provided that the prior decision of the board

was n ot based o n a s ettlem ent; and provided, f urther, that a t t he tim e of application not m ore than two y ears have elapsed since the date the l ast pay m ent of benef

i t s pursuant to Code Section 34-9-261 or 34-9-262 was actually m ade under this chapter . . .”

2th e re fo re , is no t tim e ba rre d. 3 Em p lo y e r s o u g h t

, a n d we g ra n te d, a writ o f

c e rtio ra ri.

Ou r wo rk e rs’ c o m

p e n sa tio n c o d e c on ta in s two l i mi t a tio n p e rio d s. On e ,

OCGA § 3 4 -9 -8 2

, se ts fo rth th e g e n e ra l lim ita tio n p e rio d fo r “ a ll issu e s” c la im s,

i.e

., c la im s in wh ic h c la im a n t in itia lly se e ks c o m

p e n sa tio n fo r a wo rk -re la t e d

in ju ry , a n d p ro v id e s th a t a c la im fo r b e n e fits m ust b e file d with in o n e y e a r o f th e

d a t e o f t h e a c c id e n t o r in

ju ry th a t g iv e s rise to th e c la im

. Th e o th e r, O CGA §

3 4 -9 -1 0 4 (b ), p e rta in s to a “ c h a n g e in c o n d i t io n ” c la im

. It a p p lie s to

m o d ific a tio ns o f prio r fin a l d e c isio n s an d re q uire s t h a t su c h c la im s b e file d

with in two y e a rs of th e la st pa y m e n t o f in c o m e b e n e fits. 4 S e e g e n e ra lly Ta ra

3 The Court of Appeals recognized t hat, although som e m ay view its result as absurd, “any absurdity

. . . stem s f

rom a h ole in the w orkers’ com pensation statute, nam ely its f ailure

to a ddress the ti me f

r a me in which statutory penalties o r other com pensation owed by the

em ploy e r . . . m

u st be pursued by

the em ploy e e.” Id. at 528.

4 This code section reads, in part: “[ A]ny party m ay apply u nder this c ode section f or another decision because o f a change i n c o n d i t i o n

. . . p rovided

. . . that at the tim e of application not m ore than t wo y e ars have elapsed since the d ate t he last pay m ent of incom e benef its

. . . was actually m ade

. . .” The two y ear lim itation period contained in the pre-1990
version of OCGA § 34-9-104 (b) provided that the statute did not be g i n t o run until all
incom e benef

i t s owed an em

ploy ee had been paid. Thus, if an em ploy ee had n ever been paid
all the benef

its he was due, they rem ained due, and the statute o f lim itation did not bar the

em ploy e e' s claim

. See, e.g., W et W al l s , I n c

. v

. L e dezm a, 266 Ga. App. 685, 688 (4) (598
SE2d 6 0) (2004), citing Holts Bakery v. H u t chinson, 177 Ga. App. 154, 159-161 (3) (338
SE2d 7 42) ( 1985). Cases construing the pre-1990 v e r s i o n o f the lim itation period are not applicable here.

3F o o d s v

. J o h n so n, 2 9 7 Ga

. Ap p

. 1 6

, 1 8 (6 7 6 S E2 d 4 18 ) (2 0 0 9 ) (two se p a ra te

sta tu te s o f lim ita tio n s a

p p ly to w o rk e rs’ c o m

p e n sa tio n c la im s); Ba

u gh -Ca rro ll

v

. Ho sp

. Au th

. o f Ra n d o lp h Co un ty

, 2 4 8 Ga

. Ap p

. 5 9 1

, 5 9 4 (5 4 5 S E 2 d 6 9 0 )

(2 0 0 1 ) (p ro visio n s o f “ a ll issu e s” sta tu te of lim ita tio n do n o t a p p ly to “ c h a n g e

in c o n d itio n ” c a se s wh ic h fo llo w th e p a y m e n t o f d isa b ility b e n e fits).

Em p lo y e r a sse rts th is is a “ c h a ng e in c o n d itio n c la im ,” th a t th e two y e a r

lim ita tio n s p e rio d se t fo rth in OCGA § 3 4 -9 -1 0 4 (b ) a p p lie s, a n d th a t, th e re fo re ,

e m p lo y e e ’s c la im

, wh ic h wa s file d m o re th a n two y e a rs a fte r th e la st b e n e fit

p a y m e n t, is tim e ba rre d

. Em p lo y e e d isa g re e s, a rg u in g th a t th e o n e -y e ar g e n e ra l

lim ita tio n p e rio d is a

p p lic a b le a n d th a t h is c la im is n o t tim e b arre d b e c a u se th e

o rig in a l c la im fo r be n e fits wa s file d with in o n e y e a r o f th e in ju ry g iv in g rise to

th e c la im

. To re so lv e th is d isa g re e m e n t, we m u st d e te rm in e if e m

plo y e e ’s c la im

fo r p a y m e n t o f sta tu to ry pe n a ltie s c on stitu te s a c ha n g e in c o n d itio n u n d e r th e

wo rk e rs’ c o m

p e nsa tio n c o d e

.

Un d e r OCGA § 3 4 -9 -1 0 4 (a ) (1 ), “ th e te rm ‘c ha n g e in c on ditio n ’ m e an s

a c h a n g e in th e wa g e -e a rn in g c a p a c ity

, p h y sic a l c on ditio n , o r sta tu s o f a n

e m p lo y e e o r o th e r b e ne fic ia ry c o v e re d b y th is c h a pte r, w h ic h c h a n g e m

u st h a v e

o c c u rre d a fte r th e d a te o n wh ic h th e wa g e -e arn in g c a pa c ity

, p hy sic a l c o n d itio n ,

4o r sta tu s o f th e e m p lo y e e o r o th e r b e n e fic ia ry wa s la st e sta b lish e d by a wa rd o r

o th e rwise

. ” In re a c hin g its d e c isio n , th e C o u rt o f Ap p e a ls c o rre c tly d e te rm in e d

th a t e m p lo y e e d id n ot u n d e rg o a c ha n g e in e ith e r h is w a g e -e a rn in g c a p a c ity o r

p h y sic a l c o n d itio n

. Ho we v e r, th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls fa ile d to c o n sid e r th e th ird

ty p e o f c h a n g e i n c o n d itio n , i.e

., wh e th e r e m p lo y e e u n de rwe n t a c h a n g e in

“ sta tu s.”

Ord in a rily

, o n e a sso c ia te s a c h a n g e in c on d itio n c a se with a c h a n g e in a n

e m p lo y e e ’s p h y sic a l o r e c on o m ic c o n d itio n. Th e m e a nin g o f th e wo rd “ sta tu s”

in th e c o n te x t o f a c h a n g e of c o n d itio n c a se do e s no t re a d ily le a p to m in d

. It ha s

b e e n su g g e ste d th a t th e te rm “ a p p e a r s t o re fe r p rim a rily to th e d e p e n d e n c y

sta tu s o f a b e n e fic ia ry .” Ja m e s B. Hie rs, J r

. a n d Ro b e rt R. P o tte r, Ge o rg ia

Wo rk e rs’ Co m

p e nsa tio n La

w a n d P ra c tic e § 2 3 -2 (4 th e d . 1 98 1). Th a t m a y b e

so

. A f t e r a l l

, th e sta tu te sp e a k s to th e “sta tu s o f th e e m p lo y e e or o th e r

b e n e fic ia ry ” a n d G e o rg ia c a se la w h a s u se d th e te rm “ sta tu s” in a sso c ia tio n with

d e p e n d e n c y c la im s in wo rk e rs’ c o m p e n sa tio n d e a th c a se s. S e e , e .g

. , Un ite d

S t a t e s F id e lity & Gu a ra n ty C o

. v

. Du nb a r, 11 2 Ga

. Ap p

. 1 02 (1 4 3 S E2 d 6 6 3 )

(1 9 6 5 ); F ish te n v

. Ca m

p b e ll Co a l Co

., 9 5 Ga

. Ap p. 4 1 0 (9 8 S E2 d 1 7 9 ) (1 9 5 7 ).

5Mo re o v e r, o th e r ju risd ic tio n s h a v e c o nn e c te d th e te rm “ sta tu s” to th e c la im s o f

d e p e n d e n ts. S e e , e .g ., D iS a b a tin o & S o n s, In c

. v

. Fa c c io lo

, 3 0 6 A2 d 7 1 6

, 7 1 9

(De l. 1 9 7 3 ) (q u o tin g 1 9 D e l.C. § 2 3 4 7); Ga g lia rd i v

. D o w n in g & P e rk in s, In c .,

2 0 8 A 2 d 3 3 4

, 3 3 6 (Co n n

. 1 9 6 5 ). Ou r c o d e , h o we ve r, e x p r e s s ly sp e a k s to th e

c h a n g e in “ sta tu s o f th e e m p lo y e e ,” in a d d itio n to th e sta tu s o f a b e n e fic ia ry a n d

it is a x io m a tic th a t “ th e fu n d a m e n ta l ru le s o f sta tu to ry c o n stru c tio n

. . . re q u ire

u s to c o n stru e a sta tu te a c c o rd in g to it s t e r ms, to g iv e wo rd s th e ir p la in a n d

o rd in a ry m e a nin g , a n d to a vo id a c o n stru c tio n th a t m a k e s so m e la n g u a g e m e re

su rp lu sa g e .” Sla k m a n v

. Co n tin e n ta l Ca s. C o

. , 2 7 7 Ga

. 1 8 9

, 1 9 1 (5 8 7 S E2 d 2 4 )

(2 0 0 3 ). S e e a lso F o o tsta r, In c

. v

. Lib e rty Mu t. In s. Co

., 2 8 1 Ga

. 4 4 8, 45 0 (6 3 7

S E2 d 69 2 ) (2 0 0 6 ) (c ou rt s s h o u l d re fra in fro m c o n stru in g sta tu te in a wa y th a t

re n d e rs a n y p a rt m e a n in g le ss). Th u s, th e q u e stio n re m a in s: Wh a t is a c ha n g e in

th e sta tu s o f a n e m

p lo y e e ?

Ge n e ra lly sp e a k in g , th e wo rd “ sta tu s” is d e fin e d a s th e le g a l c h a ra c te r o r

c o n d i t i o n o f a p e rso n a n d h is re la tio n sh ip with th ird pe rso n s o r th e sta te

.

Ba lla ntin e ’s La w D i c t i o n a ry 1 2 1 2 (3 rd e d

. 1 9 6 9 ). Th us, in th e wo rk e rs’

c o m p e nsa tio n a re n a , th e te rm “ sta tu s o f a n e m p lo y e e ” m e a n s th e le g a l c on d itio n

6o f a n e mp l o y e e in th e c o n te x t o f th e e m p lo y e r-e m

p lo y e e re la tio n sh ip

. S e e

g e n e ra lly Kro ge r v

. W ilso n, 3 0 1 Ga

. Ap p

. 3 4 5

, 3 4 6 -3 47 (6 87 S E2 d 5 8 6 ) (2 0 0 9 )

(re q u e st fo r c a ta stro p h ic in ju ry d e sig na tio n c o n stitu te s re q u e st fo r c ha n g e o f

sta tu s o r c o n d itio n a n d is su b je c t to two -y e a r sta tu te o f lim ita tio n ); Willia m s v

.

Co n a gra P o u ltry of Ath e n s, In c ., 2 9 5 Ga

. Ap p

. 7 4 4, 7 4 6 (6 73 S E2 d 1 0 5 ) (2 0 0 9 )

(c a ta stro p h ic in

ju ry d e sig na tio n is a sta tu s); Wie r v

. S k y lin e Me sse n g e r S e rv ic e ,

2 0 3 G a

. Ap p

. 6 7 3

, 6 7 6 (4 1 7 S E2 d 6 9 3 ) (1 9 9 2 ) (“ Un d e r th e wo rd in g o f OCGA

§ 3 4 -9 -1 0 4 (a ), p a y m e n t of in c o m e be n e fits by a n e m p lo y e r with o u t a fo rm a l

a wa rd will e sta b lish th e sta tu s o f th e e m p lo y e e ‘b y a wa rd o r o th e rwise ’ so a s to

a llo w th e e m

p lo y e e to file fo r a c h an g e in c o n d itio n w ith in two y e a rs o f th e la st

p a y m e n t o f in c o m e b e n e fits with o u t fo rm a l b o ard in te rv e ntio n .” ) W i t h t h i s

d e fin itio n in m in d

, we c o n c lu d e th a t e m p lo y e e ’s sta tu s, i.e

., h is le g a l c on d itio n

v is-a -v is e m

p lo y e r, wa s first e sta b lish e d w h e n e m p lo y e r b e g an p a y in g b e n e fits

v o lu n ta rily a n d la st e sta b lish e d wh e n th e la st b e n e fit p a y m e nt wa s m a de

. 5

Ne a rly e ig h t y e a rs a fte r e m p lo y e e ’s sta tu s w a s la st e sta b lish e d

, e m p lo y e e

5 See OCGA § 34-9-104 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( change in condition m eans change which occurs “af ter t he date on which the

. . . status o f the em p l o y e e o r other benef

iciary was last established by

award or otherwise”).

7a

p p l i e d fo r a n oth e r d e c isio n se e k in g to re c o v e r a d ditio n a l m o n ie s. Th e se

m o n ie s we re g e n e r a t ed a u to m a tic a lly du e to th e sim ple fa c t th a t th e p a y m e n ts

to e m p lo y e e we re la te

. Th e m o n ie s w e re th e m se lv e s in c om e b e n e fits wh ic h

sh o u ld h a v e b e e n a d d e d to a n d p a id with th e o rig in a l p ay m e n ts. Tre n t Tub e v

.

Hu rsto n , 2 6 1 G a

. A p p

. 52 5

, 5 2 8 (5 8 3 S E2 d 1 9 8 ) (2 00 3 ). Be c a use e m p lo y e e

wa ite d m o re th a n t w o y e a rs to se e k a d e c isio n w ith re g ard to th e se a d d itio n a l

i n c o me b e n e fits, h is c la im wa s b a rre d b y th e lim ita tio n p e rio d se t fo rth in th e

c h a n g e in c o n d itio n sta tu te

. 6

In wo rk e rs’ c o m

p e n sa tio n c a se s, a s in e v e ry c a se , th e re m u st b e c lo su re

a n d fin a lity

. “ S ta tu te s o f l i mi t a t i o n

. . . a re d e sig n e d to p ro m o te ju stic e b y

p re v e n tin g su rp rise s th ro u g h th e re v iv a l o f cl a i m s t h a t h a v e b e e n a llo we d to

slu m b e r u n til e vid e n c e h a s b e e n lo st, m e m o rie s h a v e fa de d

, a n d witn e sse s h a v e

6 Our conclusion is buttressed by the f act that the Wo r k ers’ Com pensation Board
deem ed the two-y ear change of condition lim itation statute applicable in this c a se. Center
f or a Sustainable Coast v. Coastal Marshlands Protection Com m ittee, 284 G a. 736, 741 (670
SE2d 429) (2008) (ordinarily great def erence is given to adm i n i s t r a t ive agency ’s interpretation of statute which it has the duty to e n f orce). At f

irst b l u s h

, t h e Board was intrigued by em

ploy ee’s assertion tha t t h i s i s n o t a c hange in c ondition case within the

m eaning of OCGA § 34-9-104 (a). However, looking to OCGA § 3 4-9-104 in its entirety

, i t f o u nd em ploy ee’s claim to b e a request f or authorization f

o r the recovery of i n c o me bene f i t s w ithin the m eaning of OCGA § 34-9-104 ( b), and concluded that the two y ear lim itation period was indeed applicable.

8d isap p e a re d

. Th e th e o ry is th a t e v e n if o n e h a s a ju st c la im it is u n ju st n ot to p u t

th e a dv e rsa ry o n n o tic e to d e fe n d with in th e pe rio d o f lim ita tio n a n d th a t th e

rig h t to b e fre e o f sta le c la ims in tim e c o m e s to p re v a il ov e r th e rig h t to

p ro se c u te th e m .” O rd e r o f R a ilro a d Te le g ra p h e rs v

. Ra ilwa y Ex p

. Ag e n c y , 3 2 1

U.S . 3 4 2, 3 4 8 -3 4 9 (6 4 S Ct 5 8 2 , 8 8 LE 7 88 ) (1 94 4 ).

Ju d g m e n t re ve rse d . All th e Ju stic e s c o n c u r.

9