FOURTH D I VI SI ON DI L LA RD, P. J. , B ROWN and PA DGETT, JJ.

N O T IC E : M o tions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be phy s ic a lly r

e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w . ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

Jul y 30, 2024



# In t he C ourt o f A ppe a ls o f G e o r g ia

A 24A 0 7 40. COFFM A N et al v . B A R N SLEY CON SULTI N G GROUP et al.
P A D G E T T , J u d ge. D iana Co ff

man so u ght p ayment of w o rk ers ’ c o m p ensatio n d eath benef its
f o llo w ing the d eath o f h er h u s b and

. The A d ministrativ e Law J u d ge (“ ALJ ” ) f o u nd
Co f f man w as no t entitled to benef its, and her a p p eal t o the A p p ellate D iv isio n o f the
S t a te Bo ard o f W o rk ers’ Co mp ensatio n w as d ismissed as u ntimely (“ A p p ellate
D iv isio n” ). Co f

fman then ap pealed to the s u p erio r c o u rt, w hic h also d ismissed the
ap p eal. W e granted Co f

f m a n’ s ap p lic a t io n f

or d isc retio nary ap p eal and , f o r reaso ns that f o llo w , w e af

f irm.
Fo llo w ing the death o f her hu sband , Chad , Co f f man so ught p ayment o f d eath
benef its u nd er t he W ork ers’ Co mp ensatio n A c t ( “ the A c t” )

. She f iled a c laim againstChad ’ s emp lo y er, B arnsley Co nsu lting, I nc . , and its’ w o rk ers’ c o mp ensatio n insu r er,

Co ntinental W estern Insu ranc e Co mp any ( t he “ Emp lo yer/I nsu rer” ). Fo llo w ing a hearing, the A L

J f o u nd t hat Chad ’ s d eath d id no t arise ou t of and in t he c ou rse o f his
emp lo yment and thu s d enied the c laim. 1
The A LJ ’ s aw ard w as issu ed o n J a nu ary 28, 2022, and it w as sent elec t r o nic a lly

to c o u nsel o n that d ate. It is u nd isp u ted that Co f f man’ s atto rney rec eiv ed t he aw ard

. On Febru ary 1 8, 2022 – 21 d ays af ter the aw ard ’ s issu anc e – Co f f man ap p ealed to the
A p p ellate D iv isio n. The Emp lo yer/I nsu rer mo v e d to d ismiss the ap p eal as u ntimely

u nd er OCGA § 34- 9

- 1 03 ( a), w hic h p ro v id es in relev ant p art th at “ [a]n a p p lic atio n f o r rev iew shall be mad e to the ap p ellate d iv isio n w ithin 20 d ays o f issu anc e o f no tic e

o f the aw ard

. ”
Co f f man o bj ec t ed to the d ismissal o f the ap p eal. A c c o r d ing to Co f f man, the A ct
requ ires t hat no tic e o f a n aw ard be ma i led t o p arties a t their a d d resses o f rec o r d rather
than emailed

. B ec au se the metho d o f d eliv e ry was o ther than that requ ired by statu te, Co f f man c o ntend ed that she w as entitled to an ad d itio nal three d ays in w hic h to f ile

1 Co f f man’ s hu s band was inv o lv ed i n a single- c ar ac c id e nt. The ev id enc e su ggests that t he acci d e n t wa s cau sed by med ic al issu es u nrelated to emp lo y ment. The hu sband bec ame ill d u ring his su bsequ ent ho s p italiz atio n, and he d ied tw o week s af ter the ac c id ent.
2an ap p eal. See Fa vo rs v . Tra v elers In s . C o . , 1 5 0 Ga. A p p . 7 41 , 7 47 -7 48 (2) (258 SE2d 554) (1 9 7 9 ). To t he extent the B o ard ru les p ro v id ed o therw ise, Co f f man argu ed that
the ru les exc eed ed the p ermissible statu to r y au tho rity o f the B o ard

. The A pp ellate D iv isio n granted the Emp lo yer/I nsu rer’ s mo tio n, co nc lu d ing
that the 20 d ays in w hic h to file an ap p eal b egan ru nning o n J a nu ary 28, 2022, the d a t e sho w n o n the A LJ ’ s aw ard

. The A p p ellate D iv isio n fu rther f ou nd that the aw ard w as

sent bo th v ia email and regu lar mail o n Janu ary 28, 2022. 2 B e c au se no ap p eal w as f iled

w ithin 20 d ays, the A p p e llate D iv isio n d ismissed Co f f man’ s a p p eal f

o r lac k o f j u risd ic tio n. Co f f man then ap p ealed to su p erio r c ou rt. The E m p l o y er/I nsu rer f iled a mo tio n

to d ismiss, argu ing that, bec a u se t he A L J ’s a w ard w as f

inal as a matter o f law , the

su p erio r c o u rt lac k e d j u r isd ic tio n to e ntertain the ap p eal. The su p erio r co u rt then
d ismissed t he ap p e al. Co f f man f iled a n ap p lic atio n fo r d isc retio nary ap p eal f ro m this

ru ling, w hic h w e granted

.

2 Co f f man a nd h e r atto rney bo th su bmitted a f f id av its av erring they had no t rec eiv ed c o p ies o f the aw ard via U. S. mail, and there is no th i n g i n t h e r ec o rd o ther than the Ap p ellate D iv isio n’ s statement that the aw ard w as, in f a ct, mailed

. B ec au se it is no t nec essary to o u r analysis, w e d o no t c o nsid er the extent to w hic h w e mu st c red it the A p p ellate D iv isio n’ s assertio n that the aw ard w as mailed

. 3T h e c entral issu e to be d ec id ed is w hen the c lo c k s tarts ru nning f or p u r p o s e s

o f ap p ealing a w o rk ers’ co mp ensatio n a w ard

. I n d e c i d i ng this issu e, w e lo o k f irst to OCGA § 34- 9

- 1 03, w hic h go v erns the p ro ced u re f o r ap p e aling a d ec isio n o f an A LJ

. This statu te p ro vid es, in relev ant p art:
A ny p arty d issatisf

ied with a d ec isio n o f an ad ministrativ e law j u d ge o f the trial d iv isio n o f the State B o ard o f W o rk ers’ Co mp e n sa t i o n m ay ap p eal t h at d ec isio n to the ap p ellate d iv isio n o f t he State B o a rd o f W o rk ers’ Co m p ensatio n w hic h shall hav e o riginal ap p ellate j u risd ic t io n in all w o rk ers’ c o mp ensatio n c a ses. A n a p p lic atio n f o r rev iew s hall be mad e to t he ap p ellate d iv isio n w ithin 20 d ays o f issu anc e o f no tic e o f the
aw ard

.
OCGA § 34- 9

- 1 0 3 (a). B oard Ru le 103 f u rther p r o v id es t hat “ [t]he time f o r
ap p lic atio n f

o r rev iew co mmenc es o n the d ate sho w n o n the no tic e o f the aw ard [. ]”
State B oard Ru le 1 03 (a).
B a sed o n the langu age o f the statu te and bo ar d r u l e, the ap p eal c lo c k started

ru nning o n J anu ary 28, 2022 – the d ate on w hic h t he aw ard w as issu ed

. I n a rgu ing f o r

a d if f erent resu lt, Co f

f m a n p o i n ts to OCGA § 34- 9

- 1 02 (f ), w hic h p ro v id es that an

aw ard “shall be sent to all parties and co u nsel o f rec o rd at their ad d resses o f rec o rd

. ”
Und er su bsec tio n (i), “ [a]ny no tic e r e qu ired by [the A c t] shall be satisf ied by the

4mailing o f t he no tic e to the ad d ress o f rec ord [. ]” OCGA § 34- 9

- 1 02 ( i). A c c o rd ing to

Co f f man, the u se o f the w o rd “ shall” in the statu t e ref lec t s a legislativ e mand ate that

an aw ard be mailed v ia U. S. mail.
A s a thresho ld matter, w e no te that the State B o ard o f W o rk ers’ Co m p ensatio n

– lik e many a d j u d ic ato ry b o d ies

– has m o ved to an elec tro nic f iling s y s t e m . Und er OCGA § 34- 9 -6 0 (a), the bo ard is au tho riz ed to mak e “ mak e ru les, no t inc o nsistent

w ith this c hap ter, f

or c arrying o u t t his c hap ter
. . . [and ] may p ro mu lgat e p o lic ies,

ru les, and regu latio ns c o nc erning the elec tro nic su bmissio n to a nd transmissio n f ro m the bo ard o f d o cu ments or f i l i n gs. . . . ” A nd the Ru les mak e c lear that, in mo st instanc es, the t ran s m i s sio n o f do c uments is to be a c c o m p lished t hro ugh elec tro nic

means. See State B o ard Ru les 6 0 (d ), 6 2 (d ), 1 02 (a) (5) and 1 02. 1 (a). 3
Ev en ac c ep ting that OCGA § 34- 9

- 1 02 requ ires a c o p y o f an aw ard be sent v ia
U. S. mail, w e do no t agree that the B o ard mu st p ro v id e ev id e nc e o f su c h mailing in

o rd er to s t a r t t h e c lo ck ru nning in w hic h to file an ap p eal. I n C a mb ro n v . C

a n a l In s .

3 OCGA § 34- 9

- 6 0 (a) w as amend ed in 2 0 0 5 to p av e the way f o r elec tro nic transmissio n o f d o c u ments. See Ga. L

. 2005, Ac t 37 8 § 3. The c ase Co f fman c ites to su p p o rt her c o ntentio n that she w as entitled t o a ma iled c o p y o f the aw ard – Fa v o rs v . Tra v eler’ s In s . C o . – w a s d e c id ed in 1 9 7 9

. Fa v ors , su p ra. Giv en that Fa vo rs p re- d ated the s h i f t t o e l ec tro nic transmissio n o f aw ard s, the reaso ning in that c ase has little bearing here.
5C

o . , 246 Ga. 1 47 (26 9 SE2d 426 ) (1 9 80), the Su p r eme C o u r t a d d ressed the remed y f o r a n ap p ellant w ho lo st a right to ap p eal d u e to lac k o f no tic e o f t he trial c o u rt’ s

ru ling. That Co u rt held t hat, w here no no t ic e is giv e n, a trial c o u rt m ay v ac ate and reenter its ru ling to begin anew the time in w hic h to f ile an ap p eal. See C

amb ro n , 246 Ga.

at 1 48- 1 49 (1 ). I n W

ri ght v . Yo u n

g , the Su preme Co u r t c larif ied t hat an o rd er sho u ld

no t b e vac ated simp ly bec au se a litigant d id no t rec eiv e no tic e o f a j u d gment; an o rd er sho u ld be v ac ated o nly w here the lo w er tribu nal has f ailed to f ulf ill a d u ty to p ro v id e

no tic e. W ri ght v . Yo u ng , 29 7 Ga. 6 83, 6 84 (7 7 7 SE2d 47 5) (201 5). In neither c ase d id
the Su p r eme Co u rt su ggest that an ap p ro p riate reme d y f o r a trial co u rt’ s f

ailu re to
p ro v id e no tic e o f a ru ling wo u ld be t o extend the time in w hic h to f ile a n ap p eal.
I m p lic it in these ru lings is the id ea that a litigant’ s o bligatio n to f ile a timely ap p eal is
sep arate f ro m the trial c o u rt’ s o bligatio n to p ro vid e no t ic e o f its ru ling. This reaso ning
is co nso nant w ith the j u risd ic t io nal imp lic atio ns o f f iling d ead lines. See Ho lder v . C i ty

o f Atla n ta , 29 4 Ga. Ap p . 56 8, 57 0 (6 6 9 SE2d 504) (2008) (rec o gniz ing that the f iling
d ead lines in the A c t are j u risd ic ti o n a l )

. A c c o r d ingly, the Bo ard ’ s alleged f ailu re to mail Co ff man a c o p y o f the aw ard d id no t extend the time in w hic h to ap peal.

6Fu rthermo re, t he rec ord mak e s clear that Co f f man’ s atto rney had ac tu al no tic e

o f the aw ard o n the d ate it w a s entered

. Thu s, in o rd e r to ap peal that aw ard , Co f f man

w as requ ired to file her “ ap p lic atio n f o r rev iew

. . . to the ap p ellate d iv isio n w ithin 20 d ays o f issu anc e o f

no tic e o f the aw ard

. ” See OCGA § 34- 9

- 1 03 ( a). The time began

ru nning “ o n the d ate sho w n o n the no tic e o f aw ard [

. ]” See State B oard Ru le 1 03 (a).
A ltho u gh the statu te a nd ru le ref er to “ no tic e o f the aw ard ” rather than “ aw ard ,” the
B oard has c learly interp reted the tw o as syno nymo u s. T o the extent the term “ no tic e

o f aw ard ” m ay be ambigu o u s, w e w ill def er to the B o ard ’ s interp retatio n. See C i ty o f
Gu yto n v . Ba rro w , 305 Ga. 79 9 , 802- 804 ( 2) ( 8 2 8 SE2d 36 6 ) (201 9 ) (w here the meaning o f a statu te is a mbigu o u s, w e may d ef e r to the agenc y’ s interp r e t a tio n).
Und er th e s e c i r c u mstanc es, we agree w ith the B o a rd t hat Co ff man’ s ap p eal to the
A p p ellate D iv isio n w as u ntimely and thu s su bj ec t to d ismissal.
B ut that do es no t end o u r i n qu iry. The o rd e r o n a p p eal is no t f ro m the
A p p ellate D iv isio n, it is f

ro m Co f f man’ s ap p e al t o su p erio r c o u rt. 4 The su p erio r c o urt

4 The su perio r c ou r t’ s o rd er is so mew hat c o nf u sing at it ap p ears to treat Co f f man’ s c hallenge to the J anu ary 2 8 , 2022, ru ling o f the ALJ a s d istinc t f ro m her ap p eal o f the A p p ellate D iv isio n’ s M arc h 1 6 , 202 2 , o rd er d ismissing the ap p eal. I n any ev ent, the su p erio r co u rt d etermined that it lac k ed j urisd ic tio n to co nsid er the ap p e al,
w hic h it d ismissed

. 7p u rp o rted to d ismiss the ap peal based o n lac k o f j u risd ic tio n. B u t the su p erio r c o urt

w as ac ting as an ap p ellate c o u rt and thu s had j u risd ic tio n to d etermine the p ro p r iety

o f the A p p ellate D iv isio n’ s o rd er p u rsu ant t o OCGA § 34- 9

- 1 05 (b). I nd e ed , ev en if

a lo w er co u rt lac k s ju r i s d i c t io n to enter an ord er, an ap p ellate c o u rt has j u risd ic tio n

o n ap peal f

o r the p u rp o se o f c o rrec ting an erro r o f t he lo w er co u rt. See Ferrell v . Yo u n g , 323 Ga. A p p . 338, 344 (2) (7 46 SE2d 1 6 7 ) (201 3).
The su perio r c ou rt sh o u ld hav e a f f irmed the A p p ellate D iv isio n’ s d ec isio n rather than d ismiss the ap p eal. Ord inarily, w e w o u ld vac ate t he su perio r c o u rt’ s o rd er and remand f

or entry o f a new o rd er. H ere, ho w ev er, Co f f man has no right o f ap p e al,

a n d w e s e e n o p u r po se in retu rning the c ase t o the su p erio r c ou rt f o r e ssentially a

c leric al exerc ise. Ac c o r d ingly, w e af firm the s u p erio r c ou rt’ s ru ling to t he extent it

rec o gniz ed that Co f

f man’ s ap p eal to t he A p p ellate D iv isio n w as u ntimely and that the

aw ard o f the A L

J was thu s f

inal by o p eratio n o f law

. See OCGA § 34- 9

- 1 02 (f ) (“ The

c o mp e nsatio n aw ard shall be f inal 20 d ays a f

ter issu anc e o f no t ic e o f the aw ard u nless
an ap p eal is f

iled in ac c o rd anc e w ith Co d e Sec tio n 34- 9- 1 03. ”).
Ju dgmen t a

ffi rmed. D i lla rd, P. J. , a nd Bro wn

, J. , co n cu r .

8