Court Opinion

ID: 9542936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:40:33.790554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:19.316396
License: Public Domain

ALMA WILSON, Justice,
dissenting in part:
I dissent to that part of the majority opinion which concludes that the order on review is incapable of enforcement in the district court. I would hold in conformity with those jurisdictions which consider that the enforcement of a compensation award is initiated by the filing of a certified copy of the award in the district court where that tribunal automatically renders a judgment [emphasis mine] in accordance with the award. See, footnote No. 14 of the majority opinion, citing Durham Iron Co. v. Durham, 62 Ga.App. 361, 7 S.E.2d 804, 811 (1940) and Camp v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 42 Ga.App. 653, 157 S.E. 209, 210 (1931). The amount sought to be enforced is obviously a definite award figure and is immediately ascertainable in a district court hearing by reference to simple arithmetic. The district court’s judgment thereon (not the Workers’ Compensation Court judgment) is subsequently tendered for execution. Otherwise the integrity of the district court’s enforcement apparatus is impinged by a foreign tribunal. Moreover, I see no reason to adopt a procedure which may encourage delay in the enforcement process of Workers’ Compensation awards.