Union City Auto Parts and its insurer “UCAP” appeal the superior court’s order holding that its employee Jay Edwards was entitled to payment of workers’ compensation medical benefits for an on-the-job injury aggravating his pre-existing hernias. Because OCGA § 34-9-266 expressly disallows payment of medical expenses for aggravation of any type of pre-existing hernia we find that the superior court erred in awarding compensation relating to the hernias. We accordingly reverse and remand the case to the superior court with direction that it affirm the award of the State Board of Workers’ Compensation Appellate Division denying medical benefits for treatment of Edwards’s hernias. The salient facts are undisputed. Before Edwards went to work for UCAP, he underwent surgery to remove his left kidney. He later developed two hernias at the incision site of this surgery. These hernias significantly worsened after Edwards was injured in an on-the-job automobile accident. UCAP controverted payment of medical expenses for repair of the hernias.1 The administrative law judge ruled that because Edwards’s incisional hernias were a pre-existing condition resulting from non-employment-related medical procedures, the hernias did not meet the criteria for payment of compensation for hernias outlined in OCGA § 34-9-266. The ALJ accordingly denied medical benefits for expenses relating to the hernias. The Appellate Division adopted the ALJ’s award.
Edwards appealed to the superior court, which remanded the case to the Appellate Division with direction to determine whether Edwards’s incisional hernias —as opposed to inguinal or femoral hernias2 —were governed by OCGA § 34-9-266. In its award, the Appellate Division did not directly address the distinction between incisional hernias and inguinal or femoral hernias or whether the distinction made a difference in the application of OCGA § 34-9-266. Instead, the Appellate Division simply stated that it felt constrained to conclude that under the statute and the case law interpreting it, Edwards is not entitled to compensation for his medical expenses relating to his incisional hernias. The Appellate Division added that “we find a better, fairer and more consistent policy would be to find that an aggravation of a pre-existing hernia condition is treated like any other aggravation of pre-existing condition injury.” But it noted that it was bound by case law from this court —specifically, Boswell v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. ,3 and Manufacturers Cas. Ins. Co. v. Peacock 4 —which prevented it from reaching that conclusion.
