Opinion
44129.
SUBMITTED JANUARY 13, 1969.
DECIDED FEBRUARY 13, 1969.
Workmen's compensation. Habersham Superior Court. Before Presiding Justice Emeritus Candler.
Albert P. Feldman, for appellant.
Greene, Buckley, DeRieux, Moore Jones, James H. Moore, for appellees.
An amendment to the Workmen's Compensation Act approved February 9, 1968, does not apply retroactively to agreements and awards for the payment of compensation entered before the enactment.
SUBMITTED JANUARY 13, 1969 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 13, 1969.
Upon a request by the claimant for a hearing to determine accrued compensation, the Board of Workmen's Compensation entered an award denying compensation. This is an appeal from a judgment affirming that award.
The parties had executed an agreement for the payment of compensation on March 13, 1967, and executed a supplemental agreement on March 21, 1967, stating that the employee returned to work on March 20 and that liability for compensation ceased on that date. The employer made a report and notice of final payment of compensation benefits which was received by the board on April 29. After a hearing on the claimant's request, which the director designated as a hearing "to determine a change in condition," the director, and on appeal the board, entered an award finding that there was no change in condition and denying compensation. There was evidence that the claimant worked for the employer about two months after he returned to work, that he was slow on the job (truck driver) and his shoulder and back still hurt, and he was terminated; he went to work for another employer during December 1967 at a lower wage and doing less heavy work.
An amendment to the Workmen's Compensation Act approved February 9, 1968, provides: "Notwithstanding any court decisions previously rendered construing this Code section `change in condition' as used herein insofar as it relates to Code sections 114-404 and 114-405 shall mean solely an economic change in condition occasioned by the employee's return or ability to return to work for the same or any other employer; or inability to work or continue to work for the same or any other employer, which inability is proximately caused by the accidental injury. A Supplemental Memorandum of Agreement as to Payment of Compensation or any other agreement between the claimant and employer duly signed by the parties and approved by the State Board of Workmen's Compensation is, in the absence of fraud, accident or mistake, conclusive as to such change in condition. An award of the Board based upon an approved agreement has the same legal effect and dignity as an award of the Board based upon evidence adduced at a hearing of the issues." Ga. L. 1968, pp. 3, 7, amending Code § 114-709. This provision does not apply to the supplemental agreement of March 21, 1967. "The settled rule for the construction of statutes is not to give them retrospective operation, unless the language so imperatively requires." Bank of Norman Park v. Colquitt County, 169 Ga. 534, 536 ( 150 S.E. 841); Leathers v. Turner, 75 Ga. App. 62, 65 ( 41 S.E.2d 921); Mauldin v. Georgia Cas. c. Co., 119 Ga. App. 406.
The agreement of March 13, 1967, is controlled by the law applicable to awards and approved agreements made before February 9, 1968. It continues in force until a new award is made upon application on the ground of a change of condition. Sears, Roebuck Co. v. Wilson, 215 Ga. 746, 751 ( 113 S.E.2d 611). On the hearing in this case the board should have applied the law applicable to the 1967 agreement as set forth in the cases of Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Davis, 106 Ga. App. 369 ( 126 S.E.2d 909); Employers Liab. Assur. Corp. v. Whitlock, 111 Ga. App. 440, 442 ( 142 S.E.2d 77); and U.S. Fidelity c. Co. v. Gibby, 118 Ga. App. 758 ( 165 S.E.2d 455), cert. denied. 118 Ga. App. 867.
Judgment reversed with direction that the case be remanded to the board for further action consistent with this opinion. Jordan, P. J., and Whitman, J., concur.