However, that statement was not necessary to the decision and is not to be considered as having been decided so as to constitute binding precedent. See State Hwy. Dept. v. Cooper, 104 Ga. App. 130, 136 ( 121 S.E.2d 258). "Statements and comments in an opinion concerning some rule of law or legal proposition not necessarily involved nor essential to determination of the case in hand are obiter dicta, and lack the force of an adjudication." Black's Law Dictionary, p. 541 (4th ed.).
1, it is not necessary to the resolution of the case and was thus dicta. State Hwy. Dept. v. Cooper, 104 Ga. App. 130, 136 ( 121 S.E.2d 258) (1961). Redding urges that the term "quashed" as used in the statute should be broadly construed to include any order vacating or nullifying the indictment.
Thus, it is not controlling authority. See State Hwy. Dept. v. Cooper, 104 Ga. App. 130, 136 ( 121 S.E.2d 258) (1961); Rider v. State, 103 Ga. App. 184, 185 (2) ( 118 S.E.2d 749) (1961). The dicta was included in King, supra at 111, because " [i]t has been suggested that our holding in Combs v. Adair Mortgage Co., [ 245 Ga. 296 ( 264 S.E.2d 226) (1980)], is in conflict with Western Atlantic R. Co. v. Evans, [ 96 Ga. 481 ( 23 S.E. 494) (1895)]."
" The board is therefore not bound to merely determine whether or not that employer properly controverted this claim for the sole ground listed in the notice to controvert but may determine all issues within the bounds of its rules and regulations and the law. See State Hwy. Dept. v. Cooper, 104 Ga. App. 130 (1) ( 121 S.E.2d 258); Zurich Ins. Co. v. Robinson, 127 Ga. App. 113 (5) ( 192 S.E.2d 533). See also Raines Milam v. Milam, 161 Ga. App. 860 ( 289 S.E.2d 785), holding that Code Ann. ยง 114-705, supra, is not a statute of limitation, a statutory estoppel or bar to contest issues but one of sanctions.
This language was obiter dictum as it was not necessary to the decision. State Hwy. Dept. v. Cooper, 104 Ga. App. 130 ( 121 S.E.2d 258). The order of remand to the state court had the effect of re-instituting the original suit on account, a matter within the jurisdiction of the state court. Burgess v. Nabers, 122 Ga. App. 445 ( 177 S.E.2d 266). Judgment affirmed. Shulman and Birdsong, JJ., concur.
Further, as there was nothing in the case vaguely relating to hospitals in any particular area, this language, being obiter dicta is decisive of nothing. See State Hwy. Dept. v. Cooper, 104 Ga. App. 130 ( 121 S.E.2d 258); State Hwy. Dept. v. Wilson, 98 Ga. App. 619 (2) ( 106 S.E.2d 544). Finally, the majority opinion contends that similar evidence was admitted without objection, and makes reference to the transcript at pages 260 and 306-307.
Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Mallory, 63 Ga. App. 714 ( 12 S.E.2d 112); Roddy v. Hartford Acc. c. Co., 65 Ga. App. 632 ( 16 S.E.2d 81). Code ยง 114-305, upon which appellants rely, provides in pertinent part that an employee will be forever barred unless a claim is filed with the board within one year after the accident. It was held in State Hwy. Dept. v. Cooper, 104 Ga. App. 130 ( 121 S.E.2d 258) that compliance with this statutory provision within the time limit is jurisdictional. This court has held that the failure to file a claim within the period of limitation may be waived.
The employee must affirmatively take some action within the one-year limitation, which he may do either by filing a claim, or by responding to the employer's request for a hearing and thus convert the hearing into a claim. State Hwy. Dept. v. Cooper, 104 Ga. App. 130, 134 ( 121 S.E.2d 258). The employer complied with his responsibility under the Act by filing with the insurance carrier the employer's first report of injury.
The filing of a claim for compensation within one year after the accident is jurisdictional, and in the absence of a compliance with the time limitation of the statute, the board is without authority to grant compensation. State Hwy. Dept. v. Cooper, 104 Ga. App. 130, 132 ( 121 S.E.2d 258). Judgment affirmed. Bell, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.