In оur initial review of this case, we determined that appellant’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits due to a “сhange in condition” was barred by the limitation provision set forth in Code Ann. § 114-709 (b) (3) (now OCGA § 34-9-104 (b)).
Hart v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.,
In her remaining enumerations appellant cites as error the superior court’s reversal оf the award of benefits to her by the State Board of Workers’ Compensation. The record shows that a hearing on apрellant’s change-in-condition claim was held on August 18, 1980. Following appellant’s testimony on direct examination, appellеe began its cross-examination of her. After asking only three questions, all of which related to appellant’s receiрt of her last benefit check, appellee moved to dismiss appellant’s claim on the ground that it was barred by the limitatiоn provision of Code Ann. § 114-709 (b) (3). After a short discussion, the administrative law judge (ALJ) granted appellee’s motion and dismissed the claim. An awаrd to this effect denying appellant’s claim was entered on August 29, 1980. Appellant filed a petition for review by the full board which, on *682 December 16, 1980, entered an award directing the payment of certain income benefits to appellant by apрellee. The Board based the award upon its conclusion of law that Code Ann. § 114-709 did not bar appellant’s claim and alsо upon findings of fact culled from a “de novo consideration of all the evidence.” Appellee then appеaled to the Superior Court of Lowndes County, which reversed the award of the Board on two grounds. In addition to finding that appellant’s claim was barred by the subject statute of limitation, the court also found: “[I]t is clear that, at the time of the decision of the [ALJ] to deny Employee-Claimant’s Motion for a Change in Condition, at the initial hearing without further evidence, the subsequent award of thе Full Board ... granting benefits to the claimant without remanding the claim to allow evidence by Owens-Illinois, Inc. was erroneous as a mаtter of law.”
The thrust of the enumerations is that the above-quoted order of the superior court was not authorized becаuse the court was bound to accept the Board’s findings of fact if there was any evidence in support thereof. Apрellant argues that the evidence considered by the Board was sufficient to support the award and that appellеe had the opportunity to present evidence at the administrative hearing, or before the full board, but elected instеad “to base its strategy upon the assumption that the statute of [limitation] was a complete bar to any recovery.” Appellee counters that the Board’s decision denied it the opportunity for a full and fair presentation of its casе, including a thorough and sifting cross-examination of appellant.
The constitution of this state guarantees to all persons due process of law and unfettered access to the courts of this state. Art. I, Sec. I, Pars. I and IX, Constitution of Georgia of 1976 (Code Ann. §§ 2-101 and 2-109). These fundamental constitutional rights require that every party to a lawsuit (or a workers’ compensation proceeding) be afforded the opportunity to be heard and to present his claim or defense, i.e., to have his day in court. Seе
Zorn v. Walker,
It is patently cleаr from the record in this case that the Board’s award in favor of appellant was made without affording appelleе the opportunity to present any evidence in defense and also without affording it the opportunity to cross-examinе appellant on the substantive merits of her claim. “Statutes of limitation look only to remedy and not to substantive rights ...”
Dixie Constr. Co. v. Williams,
Cleаrly, a party does not waive its right to cross-examination and to a full and fair hearing on the substantive merits of its defense by succеssfully asserting a plea in bar (such as a statute of limitation) at the trial and hearing level. If such a plea is later ruled ineffective on appeal, the proper procedure is to remand the case for a full presentation of evidеnce by all parties on the substantive merits thereof. See
American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Williams,
Judgment affirmed.