Court Opinion

ID: 9580159
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:02:40.725924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:05.940760
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
Hall, Judge.
On the motion for rehearing^ the, employee contends that this court has misconstrued the cáse of Metropolitan Cas. Ins. Co. v. Maloney, 56 Ga. App. 74, supra, because of the following statement found in that opinion at page 79: *136“Thus, under our statute, where they fail to agree, and an employee has not .made a claim, the employer is permitted to institute a proceeding to secure a determination of the employee’s right to compensation,” citing Ballenger v. Rock Run Iron Co., 166 Ga. 490 (143 SE 595) in support. The Ballenger case does not support this statement. It merely holds that where an employer has initiated a hearing under Code Ann. § 114-706, the employee cannot enjoin the proceeding in a court of equity, for the reason that-he has an adequate remedy at law to object before the board-to the jurisdiction of that body. The above statement in the Metropolitan Cas. Ins. Co. case was dictum and was not at all necessary to that decision. Accordingly, it is not controlling authority and will not be followed here.
■ Whatever the situations may be which would authorize an employer to make an application for a-hearing under Code Ann. § 114-706, any application by him for a hearing, to have determined the amount of compensation, if any, to which the employee may be entitled, in no'.way relieves the employee from taking some affirmative action before the board within the one-year limitation. . .

Motion for rehearing denied.

Felton, C. J., and Bell, J., concur.