MONK v. PARKER Et Al., 331 Ga. App. 736

Former Counsel (Monk) represented a workers’ compensation claimant from 2004 until the claimant terminated him in Feb. 2012; Former Counsel filed an attorney withdrawal/lien on Form WC‑108b via the Board’s electronic filing but did not serve copies on opposing counsel.
Claimant retained Current Counsel (Parker & Hanna), who negotiated a Stipulation and Agreement approved by the Board in Aug. 2012; Current Counsel was ordered to hold $77,385.74 in escrow pending resolution of attorney lien disputes.
The Board set mediation/hearing dates on the fee dispute; Current Counsel moved to dismiss Former Counsel’s lien for failure to serve the WC‑108b as required by Board Rule 108(e). The ALJ found a technical service violation but declined to dismiss the lien, citing actual notice via electronic filing and set a hearing on lien satisfaction.
The Workers’ Compensation Appellate Division reversed the ALJ, holding that failure to serve the WC‑108b on all counsel per Rule 108(e) meant the lien was not perfected and thus dismissible; it rejected electronic notice as a substitute for the rule’s service requirement.
The superior court affirmed the Appellate Division; this Court granted discretionary appeal and affirmed the superior court, finding no error in the Division’s application of Board rules and authority.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Monk)	Defendant's Argument (Parker)	Held
Proper standard of review for superior court’s review of Appellate Division	Superior court erred using "any evidence" standard	Any-evidence standard applies to factual findings; legal questions reviewed de novo	Courts apply any-evidence for facts, de novo for application of law; no reversible error here
Whether failure to serve WC‑108b was waived	Service requirement effectively waived because parties had actual/electronic notice; ALJ found waiver	Rule 108(e) requires service on all counsel; electronic notice is not a substitute	Appellate Division correctly held lack of proper service prevented perfection of lien; no waiver shown
Interpretation and scope of Board Rule 108(e)	Rule should be read permissively to avoid forfeiture; Board exceeded authority if it causes forfeiture	Rule 108(e) valid under Board statutory rulemaking powers and requires strict compliance to perfect lien	Rule 108(e) is within Board authority and requires service and supporting documentation; failure to comply results in waiver of fees
Constitutional/vested-rights challenge to dismissal of lien	Dismissal forfeits vested property right to fees previously granted by Board	Record does not show Board had already vested fees; no constitutional deprivation	No vested right shown in record; dismissal did not unconstitutionally divest any established fee entitlement

Williams v. Fannie Mae, 299 Ga. App. 574 (appellate courts will not consider facts asserted only in briefs and not in the record)
Nye v. State, 279 Ga. App. 347 (appellant must ensure appellate record contains necessary evidence)
Ray Bell Constr. Co. v. King, 281 Ga. 853 (workers’ comp factual findings reviewed for any evidence; legal questions de novo)
Trax‑Fax, Inc. v. Hobba, 277 Ga. App. 464 (de novo review applies to an appellate division’s application of law to facts)
Mulligan v. Selective HR Solutions, 289 Ga. 753 (court may assess validity of agency rules against authorizing statute)
MARTA v. Reid, 295 Ga. 863 (courts defer to agency interpretations of statutes and rules it administers)
Lane v. Williams Plant Srvcs., 330 Ga. App. 416 (discussing deference to agency rule interpretation)