Court Opinion

ID: 9580948
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:10:27.483026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:37.073383
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
dissenting in part.
I concur fully in Division 1 of the majority opinion. However, I *104part company with respect to Division 2 and would affirm the trial court’s conclusion that only the insurer of the employer at the time of the injury is liable for workers’ compensation coverage.
The employment with Norcom ended on July 31, 1983, when Wiley ceased to be its employee and Norcom ceased to be his employer. The new employer agreed with the old to provide workers’ compensation coverage for Wiley, and it did so.
Board Rule 603 requires that certain forms be filed by an insurer or employer as “Proof of compliance with insurance provisions.” It “establishes the procedure through which the insurer shall notify the Board of its workers’ compensation insurance coverage of each insured employer, both at the outset and at the end of coverage.” Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Haynes, 163 Ga. App. 288, 289 (2) (293 SE2d 744) (1982). (Emphasis supplied.)
I do not believe Rule 603 (d) relates to the cessation of coverage of an employee who discontinues employment, but rather to the termination of the policy. The fact that the policy was continued beyond the date the new owner took over the business, so as to protect the officers, should not obliterate the fact that Wiley was not an employee of Norcom on the date of the accident. Rule 603 does not require the insurer or the employer to notify the Board that an employee (or employees; there were 10 in this instance) who were covered as employees no longer work for the company and so are no longer covered by the still-existing policy. It requires reports in order to show that, when legally mandated, policies are in existence and effect. “The State Board of Workers’ Compensation is charged with overseeing compliance with the Workers’ Compensation statute requiring employers to insure payment of employees’ claims for on-the-job accidents resulting in injury or death. The Board’s effective performance of this duty depends, in part, upon its awareness of the insured or uninsured status of each employer to which the Workers’ Compensation statute applies. The notice requirements of Rule 603 are essential in this regard.” Lumbermens, supra at 289-290. (Emphasis supplied.) Those who are employees are covered until proper proof of policy termination is filed, as in Lumbermens, supra, and International Indem. Co. v. White, 174 Ga. App. 773 (331 SE2d 37) (1985). Workers’ compensation is intended to provide compensatory benefits to employees for “injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment.” OCGA § 34-9-1 (4). It is the employer in whose employ the claimant is when the injury occurs who is liable for the compensation and medical expenses. See Hanover Ins. Co. v. Sharpe, 148 Ga. App. 195, 199 (2) (250 SE2d 815) (1978).
I find no case where, because of the non-filing of a Report of Cancellation Form “B,” a former employee is covered for injury sustained while working for a subsequent and independently covered employer. *105If Rule 603 requires such, it is not plain. “[W]hen violation of a regulation subjects private parties to criminal or civil sanctions, the regulation cannot be construed to mean what the agency intended but did not adequately express.” Travelers Ins. Co. v. Sanford, 242 Ga. 324, 325 (249 SE2d 34) (1978).
Decided February 6, 1986
Rehearing denied March 5, 1986
Richard G. Farnsworth, Mark S. Gannon, Jeanne M. Bynum, for appellants.
Jack J. Menendez, Robert L. Husby, Jr., Jack 0. Morse, for appellees.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Birdsong and Judge Carley join in this dissent.