In August 1994, while employed as a truck driver for Gemi Trucking Company, Charles Hughes was involved in a single vehicle accident which rendered him a quadriplegic. Gemi Trucking and its insurer, One Beacon Insurance Company collectively, “Gemi Trucking”, deemed the accident compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act, and paid Charles Hughes temporary total disability income benefits from the date of the accident until March 2001, when he died as a result of the injuries suffered in the accident. In all, Gemi Trucking paid Charles Hughes a total of $93,775 in temporary total disability benefits. After Charles Hughes’ death, Gemi Trucking began paying workers’ compensation death benefits to his 40-year-old wife, Lisa Hughes. In September 2001, after paying approximately $7,000 to Lisa Hughes in death benefits, Gemi Trucking suspended benefit payments, claiming that benefits paid to the Hugheses had exceeded the $100,000 statutory limit on workers’ compensation benefits. Lisa Hughes requested a hearing to determine her eligibility to continue to receive death benefits. She argued that she is entitled to receive benefits until age 65,1 and that there is no cap on the amount of benefits she can receive as an “age 65″ dependent. She urged alternatively that, if any cap applies, it is a $125,000, not a $100,000 limit.2 She further urged that if a limit on death benefits applies, Gemi Trucking was not entitled to a credit for disability benefits paid during her husband’s life.3 Gemi Trucking filed a notice to controvert her request.
The administrative law judge held that Lisa Hughes, who chose to receive benefits to age 65, was entitled to continued death benefits, but that there was a $100,000 cap on the amount she was entitled to receive. The administrative law judge also held that Gemi Trucking was not entitled to a credit for the temporary total disability benefits paid to Charles Hughes, because that statute only states that the credit applies to claimants who are “400-week” dependents under OCGA § 34-9-13 e, and is silent on the issue of “age 65″ dependents. The appellate division of the State Board of Workers’ Compensation reviewed the award, and adopted the administrative law judge’s findings as its own.
