American Mobile Imaging, Inc. v. Miles

581 S.E.2d 396, 260 Ga. App. 877, 2003 Fulton County D. Rep. 1366, 2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 500
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedApril 15, 2003
DocketA03A0018
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 581 S.E.2d 396 (American Mobile Imaging, Inc. v. Miles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
American Mobile Imaging, Inc. v. Miles, 581 S.E.2d 396, 260 Ga. App. 877, 2003 Fulton County D. Rep. 1366, 2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 500 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

Ruffin, Presiding Judge.

American Mobile Imaging, Inc. (“American Mobile”) and Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (“Fireman’s Fund”) moved the superior court to set aside an award of workers’ compensation benefits to Kathleen Miles, asserting that they did not “receive[ ] proper notice of the request for a hearing or notice of hearing.” The superior court denied the motion, and we granted American Mobile/Fireman’s Fund’s application for discretionary appeal. For reasons that follow, we affirm.

The record reveals that, on November 21, 2001, Miles filed a request for a workers’ compensation hearing and listed American Mobile as the employer. The State Board of Workers’ Compensation scheduled a hearing in the matter, and a secretary at the State Board mailed hearing notices to American Mobile and Fireman’s Fund, the workers’ compensation insurance provider.

Although the secretary evidently mailed the hearing notices to the correct addresses,1 she did not send the notices via certified mail. And employees of American Mobile and Fireman’s Fund aver that they never received any notice. Thus, neither American Mobile nor Fireman’s Fund appeared at the hearing. After the State Board of Workers’ Compensation awarded benefits to Miles, American Mobile and Fireman’s Fund moved to set aside the award. The two compa[878]*878nies argue that the lack of notice constitutes a nonamendable defect, which warrants setting aside the award. We disagree.

OCGA § 34-9-102 (i) requires employers to maintain a current address with the State Board of Workers’ Compensation and provides that “[a]ny notice required by this chapter shall be satisfied by the mailing of the notice to the address of record.” Such statute, which focuses on the mailing of notice rather than actual receipt, does not violate due process.2 As this Court recently noted,

[d]ue process requires notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. Applying that standard, courts have found first-class mail sufficient to meet due process requirements despite contentions that the notices were never received.3

It is true that “[a] judgment or order based upon a trial or hearing entered against a party without notice to that party of the trial or hearing is subject to a motion to set aside where the lack of notice appears on the face of the record.”4 Again, however, the relevant Code section expressly provides that the notice requirement is satisfied by “mailing” such notice, and it does not require that notice be sent via certified mail.5 Thus, we find that mailing notice, via first class mail, is sufficient.6 Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the failure of a party to actually receive the notice constitutes a nonamendable defect. And the cases cited by American Mobile/Fireman’s Fund do nothing to dissuade us, as none construes a statute analogous to OCGA § 34-9-102 (i).7

American Mobile/Fireman’s Fund also argue that a different rule is required because American Mobile is a nonresident employer. Specifically, American Mobile/Fireman’s Fund assert that OCGA § 34-9-102 (j) mandates that a nonresident party be served via certified mail or statutory overnight delivery. Pretermitting whether the State Board of Workers’ Compensation should have notified American Mobile in this fashion, we find no basis for reversal. OCGA § 34-9-1 [879]*879(3), which defines “employer,” provides that “[i]f the employer is insured, this term shall include [the] insurer as far as applicable.” Thus, notice to either the employer or insurer serves as notice to the other.8 In this case, although American Mobile is a nonresident, Fireman’s Fund, which has a Georgia address, is a resident. Accordingly, the notice mailed to Fireman’s Fund constituted sufficient notice for both the employer and insurer.9 It follows that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to set aside filed by American Mobile/Fireman’s Fund.10

Decided April 15, 2003 Drew, Eckl & Farnham, Gary R. Hurst, Amy B. Siegel, for appellants. Craig A. Webster, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Smith, C. J., and Miller, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Girls Galore, Inc. v. City of Atlanta
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2026
Sampson v. Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice
760 S.E.2d 203 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2014)
READY MIX USA, INC. v. Ross
726 S.E.2d 90 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2012)
Surles v. Cornell Corrections of California, Inc.
659 S.E.2d 683 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2008)
Blue Stone Lofts, LLC v. D'AMELIO
601 S.E.2d 719 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2004)
High Voltage Vending, LLC v. Odom
597 S.E.2d 428 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2004)
Saxton v. Davis
584 S.E.2d 683 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
581 S.E.2d 396, 260 Ga. App. 877, 2003 Fulton County D. Rep. 1366, 2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-mobile-imaging-inc-v-miles-gactapp-2003.