Opinion
41508.
ARGUED SEPTEMBER 13, 1965.
DECIDED SEPTEMBER 22, 1965. REHEARING DENIED OCTOBER 15, 1965.
Workmen's compensation. McDuffie Superior Court. Before Judge Stevens.
Samuel F. Maguire, Fulcher, Fulcher, Hagler, Harper Reed, E. D. Fulcher, for plaintiffs in error.
Thurmond, Hester, Jolles McElmurray, Thomas R. Burnside, Jr., contra.
Assuming arguendo that parties to an original compensation award or agreement can enter into a new agreement effecting a change in the compensation payable, the approval of such an agreement by the Board of Workmen's Compensation is not authorized unless the agreement stipulates facts showing that the claimant's condition has changed since the original award or agreement.
ARGUED SEPTEMBER 13, 1965 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 22, 1965 — REHEARING DENIED OCTOBER 15, 1965.
In this case the workmen's compensation claimant and the employer entered into an agreement, which was approved by the board in December 1961, for the payment of compensation until terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law, reciting that the claimant received an injury to his head. In November 1962 the board approved a second agreement signed by the parties, for the payment of compensation after March 1, 1962, for 100 weeks. The second agreement referred to the previous claim and agreement and recited that the claimant "lost the following member: 50% of right arm." In June 1963 the claimant requested a hearing "to show cause why payments should not be resumed" under the first agreement. After the hearing the board held that the claimant was still entitled to compensation under the original agreement because the second agreement did not show that he had returned to work, was able to return to work, or had undergone a change in condition, and accordingly gave an award for the claimant. The employer assigns error on the judgment of the superior court affirming this award.
After there has been an award or approved agreement for the payment of compensation, an award of the board changing the compensation is not authorized unless there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the claimant's condition has changed since the original award or agreement. Phinese v. Ocean Accident c. Corp., 81 Ga. App. 394 ( 58 S.E.2d 921); Sinyard v. Stokes, 82 Ga. App. 454, 457 ( 61 S.E.2d 504); Fletcher v. Aetna Cas. c. Co., 95 Ga. App. 23, 24 ( 96 S.E.2d 650); Fralish v. Royal Indemnity Co., 53 Ga. App. 557 ( 186 S.E. 567). It follows that, if the parties to the original award can enter into a new agreement effecting a change in the compensation payable, the approval of such an agreement by the board is not authorized unless the agreement stipulates facts showing that the claimant's condition has changed since the original award or agreement. Accord Sears, Roebuck Co. v. Wilson, 215 Ga. 746, 751 ( 113 S.E.2d 611); Fidelity Cas. Co. v. Parham, 218 Ga. 640, 642 ( 129 S.E.2d 868); Hartford Accident c. Co. v. Webb, 109 Ga. App. 667, 669 ( 137 S.E.2d 362).
There is in the record of this case a medical report showing that the claimant had injuries to his right arm and shoulder, ribs, and head, received medical treatment, and had a 50% permanent disability of his right shoulder.
The employer argues that this medical report accompanied the second agreement and shows that the claimant's condition changed after the original agreement. The record does not show that the medical report was a part of the second agreement.
Judgment affirmed. Bell, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.