Trent Tube et al. v. Hurston

31 Citing cases

  1. Lane v. Williams Plant Servs.

    766 S.E.2d 482 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015)

    Other portions of OCGA § 34–9–221 provide for penalties when income benefits are not paid when due. See, e.g., OCGA § 34–9–221(e). (b) Lane asserts that our decision in Trent Tube v. Hurston, 261 Ga.App. 525, 583 S.E.2d 198 (2003), mandates the conclusion that a payment is “actually made” under OCGA § 34–9–104(b) when it is received by the employee. We disagree.

  2. Lane v. Williams Plant Servs.

    766 S.E.2d 482 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014)

    Other portions of OCGA § 34–9–221 provide for penalties when income benefits are not paid when due. See, e.g., OCGA § 34–9–221(e).(b) Lane asserts that our decision in Trent Tube v. Hurston, 261 Ga.App. 525, 583 S.E.2d 198 (2003), mandates the conclusion that a payment is “actually made” under OCGA § 34–9–104(b) when it is received by the employee. We disagree.

  3. R. R. Donnelley v. Ogletree

    A11A1170 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2011)

    However, the appellate division's decisions based on erroneous legal theories are subject to the de novo standard of review. Trent Tube v. Hurston, 261 Ga. App. 525 ( 583 SE2d 198) (2003). The record evidence shows that Ogletree began working for the employer in March 1997 as an assistant pressman.

  4. Williams v. Conagra Poultry of Athens

    295 Ga. App. 744 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 7 times

    [Cit.]" Trent Tube v. Hurston, 261 Ga. App. 525 ( 583 SE2d 198) (2003). The evidence shows that, in November 1992, Williams injured her neck and shoulders while working at a chicken plant owned by Conagra Poultry of Athens, Inc. ("Conagra").

  5. Goswick v. Murray Cnty. Bd. of Educ

    636 S.E.2d 133 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 3 times

    Trent Tube v. Hurston.Trent Tube v. Hurston, 261 Ga. App. 525 ( 583 SE2d 198) (2003). Construed in favor of the ALJ's decision (which was adopted by the Board), the evidence shows that after experiencing a knee injury on the job in 2001 (exacerbated in 2002), Goswick began receiving disability payments from his employer and medical treatment from Dr. Herndon.

  6. Marta v. Reid

    S13G1812 (Ga. Sep. 22, 2014)

    These monies were generated automatically due to the simple fact that the payments to employee were late. The monies were themselves income benefits which should have been added to and paid with the original payments. Trent Tube v. Hurston, 261 Ga. App. 525, 528 (583 SE2d 198) (2003). Because employee waited more than two years to seek a decision with regard to these additional income benefits, his claim was barred by the limitation period set forth in the change in condition statute.

  7. Barnett v. Ga. Dep't of Labor

    748 S.E.2d 688 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 2 times

    Id. at 161(3), 664 S.E.2d 223. Thus, in reviewing a decision of the Board that an employee is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits, the reviewing court must affirm the decision of the Board, in the absence of legal error, if the Board's decision is supported by any competent evidence in the administrative record. Williams v. Butler, 322 Ga.App. 220, 744 S.E.2d 396 (2013); see also N. Fulton Regional Hosp. v. Pearce–Williams, 312 Ga.App. 388, 390, 718 S.E.2d 583 (2011) (physical precedent only); Trent Tube v. Hurston, 261 Ga.App. 525, 583 S.E.2d 198 (2003). However, the Board's application of the law to the facts is reviewed de novo. Pruitt Corp. v. Ga. Dept. of Community Health, 284 Ga. at 161(3), 664 S.E.2d 223;N. Fulton Regional Hosp. v. Pearce–Williams, 312 Ga.App. at 390, 718 S.E.2d 583;Trent Tube v. Hurston, 261 Ga.App. at 525, 583 S.E.2d 198.

  8. Zheng v. New Grand Buffet, Inc.

    A12A2328 (Ga. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2013)

    On appeal, we affirm factual findings by the Board that are supported by any evidence, but review de novo the application of law to undisputed facts. Trent Tube v. Hurston, 261 Ga. App. 525 (583 SE2d 198) (2003). The parties do not dispute that Zheng sustained a compensable injury on May 27, 2010, and began receiving medical care and income benefits.

  9. R.R. Donnelley v. Ogletree

    312 Ga. App. 475 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 8 times
    Finding “that a specific incident is not a prerequisite to a finding of a new accident based upon an aggravation of a pre-existing injury”

    However, the appellate division's decisions based on erroneous legal theories are subject to the de novo standard of review. Trent Tube v. Hurston, 261 Ga.App. 525, 583 S.E.2d 198 (2003). The record evidence shows that Ogletree began working for the employer in March 1997 as an assistant pressman.

  10. Crossmark v. Strickland

    310 Ga. App. 303 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 1 times

    (Citation, punctuation and footnote omitted.) Trent Tube v. Hurston, 261 Ga.App. 525, 528(1), 583 S.E.2d 198 (2003). And, as discussed infra, the superior court's ruling was substantively correct, and so any misstatement regarding the standard of review was harmless.