In this case of first impression, we granted the Subsequent Injury Trust Fund’s the “Fund”1 application for discretionary review to determine whether an employer’s advance payment to an employee under OCGA § 34-9-222 constitutes the payment of an income benefit for purposes of calculating the 78-week time limitation for filing a claim for reimbursement under OCGA § 34-9-362 a.2 The superior court found that the claim for reimbursement filed by Employer/Self-Insurer City of Atlanta and its servicing agent, NovaPro Risk Solutions collectively, the “City” was proper and not time-barred, and, in doing so, reversed the award of the State Board of Workers Compensation the “Board” which held that the City’s claim was time-barred. The Board reasoned that “only 59 weeks of income benefits had been paid as of October 15, 2002 when the City’s claim was filed.” The Fund appeals, asserting that it was required to deny the City’s claim as untimely, since the City’s advance payment to the employee, in addition to temporary total disability “TTD” income benefits being paid, equated to more than 78 weeks of paid income benefits, triggering its 78-week claims limitation. We conclude that a lump sum payment of future income benefits to prevent extreme hardship is not subject to conversion into weekly income benefits paid to compensate for lost income in calculating the expiration of the foregoing limitation on claims. Accordingly, we affirm. In the absence of legal error, the factual findings of the Board must be affirmed by the superior court and by the Court of Appeals when supported by any evidence in the administrative record. Erroneous applications of law to undisputed facts, as here, as well as decisions based on erroneous theories of law, however, are subject to the de novo standard of review. Footnote, citation, and punctuation omitted. Strickland v. Crossmark, Inc. , 298 Ga. App. 568, 569 680 SE2d 606 2009.
The relevant facts are undisputed. On April 5, 2001, Ollie Thornton sustained a compensable work injury while employed by the City. He initially received his salary in lieu of workers’ compensation benefits, but on September 2, 2001, he began receiving workers’ compensation TTD income benefits. On May 30, 2002, the Board issued an order finding that an advance of $12,000 was in “Thornton’s best interest to prevent extreme hardship.” On June 21, 2002, the City paid Thornton $12,000 pursuant to such order. The Board’s order provided that the advance was to be credited against the City’s liability to pay the employee PPD income benefits in the future.3 On October 15, 2002, after having been paid TTD benefits for 59 weeks, the City notified the Fund of a potential claim for reimbursement.
