Recently in Georgia Workers' Compensation Category

February 28, 2015

Sullwold v. Salvation Army - Heart Attack at Home Deemed Compensable

In most cases, injuries that happen at home or are attributed to an internal, personal condition will not be compensated through workers' compensation insurance. That's because injuries must arise out of and in the course of one's employment.
heartattack.jpg
However, the recent case of Sullwold v. Salvation Army, before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, proves there are always exceptions.

The case involved a high-level executive for a non-profit organization who died of a heart attack while walking on the treadmill at home. Three factors made this case different than most others we might see in similar circumstances. The first is that plaintiff was given permission to work from home on some occasions, and this was one of those. The second is that although he was on a treadmill when he suffered the heart attack, he was working from his smartphone as he walked. And finally, his widow was able to produce evidence indicating the heart attack was caused in large part due to work-related stress.

Continue reading "Sullwold v. Salvation Army - Heart Attack at Home Deemed Compensable" »

February 10, 2015

Morales v. Zenith Ins. Co. - 11th Circuit Affirms Exclusive Remedy Provision

In a decision aligned with that of the Florida Supreme Court, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals - the same one that oversees the review of Georgia cases - backed the exclusive remedy provision of workers' compensation law as the sole source of compensation for a deceased worker's family.
graveyard.jpg
The exclusive remedy provision - which is woven into workers' compensation laws in all 50 states - strips workers of the right to sue employers, even when the incident leading to injury or death was the result of negligence. Rare exceptions are made in certain states when it can be shown an employer displayed wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of workers. However, in most cases, workers and their families will be limited to workers' compensation benefits from an employer.

Some situations may be ripe for civil litigation against a third-party wrongdoer, but that will depend heavily on the underlying circumstances.

Continue reading "Morales v. Zenith Ins. Co. - 11th Circuit Affirms Exclusive Remedy Provision" »

February 5, 2015

State ex rel McCormick v. McDonald's - Maximum Medical Improvement

In workers' compensation law, the concept of maximum medical improvement can be an especially thorny one. That's because this determination spurs important questions about the continuation and amount of benefits.
chiropractor.jpg
Maximum medical improvement is considered the point at which a worker's medical condition has stabilized to the point that any further improvement isn't likely, even in spite of ongoing treatment or rehabilitation. Essentially, it's a plateau, meaning the worker is "as good as he/she is going to get."

This can indicate full recovery, but it also can simply mean the patient is not going to get any better. It is from this point a determination can be made regarding permanent partial impairment.

Continue reading "State ex rel McCormick v. McDonald's - Maximum Medical Improvement" »

January 31, 2015

Demetres v. East West Construction - Subcontractor Deemed "Co-Employee"

When a worker suffers an on-the-job injury, state law holds workers' compensation benefits are the sole source of compensation a worker can receive, with few exceptions. These benefits are considered the "exclusive remedy" a worker can pursue against an employer.
bulldozer.jpg
Other third parties may still be vulnerable to a negligence lawsuit, but plaintiffs should bear in mind that some are still statutorily protected under workers' compensation law in some cases.

For example, a negligent third-party driver could be held liable, as could potentially the property owner of a construction site. However, there are some exceptions. Co-workers, for example, are usually protected. (A 2012 Georgia Supreme Court decision in Smith v. Ellis held co-workers could potentially be held liable for injuries caused if their negligent actions occurred outside the course and scope of their employment.)

Continue reading "Demetres v. East West Construction - Subcontractor Deemed "Co-Employee"" »

January 6, 2015

Martin County Coal Co. v. Goble - On Permanent Psychological Impairments

In most work-related injury claims, the primary focus is on physical injuries. However, there are some cases in which psychological injuries may have been sustained as well as a result of the physical injury or related work incident.
oldman.jpg
Such injuries, which may include depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), pain disorder and adjustment disorders, are more difficult to prove to state workers' compensation board officials. This is particularly true when injured workers are seeking to show permanent psychological injuries.

But as the recent case of Martin County Coal Co. v. Goble, it most certainly is possible with the proper evidence.

Continue reading "Martin County Coal Co. v. Goble - On Permanent Psychological Impairments" »

October 30, 2014

Humphrey v. Lowe's - Workers' Compensation After Voluntary Exit

Georgia workers' compensation injury claims are rarely straightforward, even when it's clear injury occurred in the scope and course of employment.
boxes.jpg
This is especially true with regard to temporary total disability benefits when a worker quits, is fired or is laid-off for reasons unrelated to the injury.

Temporary total disability (TTD) benefits are those designed to help workers recover lost income when they are unable to work due to a job-related injury. Workers qualify if they cannot do the kind of work they did before because of the accident. If an employee is deemed entitled to collect temporary total disability benefits, those may continue until:


  • He returns to work

  • His doctor says he can return to work

  • His doctor says he has permanent disability that is not expected to improve (at which point you can seek permanent disability benefits)

  • More than 400 weeks have passed since the injury (unless injuries are catastrophic, in which they case benefits could continue indefinitely)

Continue reading "Humphrey v. Lowe's - Workers' Compensation After Voluntary Exit" »

October 20, 2014

Barzey v. City of Cuthbert - Non-Dependent Parent Precluded From Workers' Comp Death Benefits

The Georgia Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of a provision of the Workers' Compensation Act that precludes non-dependent parents from recovering benefits following the death of an adult child killed in the course of employment.
cemetery.jpg
In Barzey v. City of Cuthbert, plaintiff argued the provision violated her constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. The state supreme court disagreed, finding the law was sound, even though it left plaintiff with virtually no means of monetary recovery for her son's death.

Workers' compensation, the court reasoned, is established to allow exclusive remedy to an employee's heir's for the worker's death during the course of employment, and the act expressly states that compensation for the death of a worker is to be payable only to dependents, and even then, only during dependency.

Continue reading "Barzey v. City of Cuthbert - Non-Dependent Parent Precluded From Workers' Comp Death Benefits" »

October 10, 2014

Third-Party Co-Worker Lawsuit After Workers' Comp Claim

After filing a workers' compensation claim in Georgia, there may be other avenues of compensation available. These include third-party lawsuits, which can be brought against anyone from manufacturers of defective products to owners of a construction site where an injury occurred.
desperation.jpg
In some situations, third-party lawsuits may be brought against co-workers if it can be shown their negligent actions were proximate cause of your injuries. However, there is one key point that must be proven in order to bring a claim in these cases. It will need to be proven the co-worker was acting outside the scope of his or her employment at the time he or she caused the injury.

The Georgia Supreme Court set this precedent rather recently in the 2012 case of Smith v. Ellis, reversing the precedent set previously by the Court of Appeals ten years earlier in Ridley v. Monroe. The principle question in Smith was whether a worker who files for - and receives - workers' compensation in exchange for a no liability settlement with his employer is then allowed to turn around and sue the co-employee who caused the injury. The appellate court had answered "No" in Ridley, holding OCGA 34-9-11(a) bars such recovery because the employee has already obtained relief. The state supreme court held that while Ridley was correctly decided, and workers are barred from collecting compensation from co-workers acting within the scope of employment at the time of an accident, they may pursue damages from a co-worker as third-party if the co-worker was acting outside the scope of employment.

Continue reading "Third-Party Co-Worker Lawsuit After Workers' Comp Claim" »

October 1, 2014

Marta v. Reid - Late Payments in Workers' Compensation Claims

The Georgia Legislature recognized that when workers are injured on-the-job, they are entitled not only to receive adequate compensation, but also to obtain those benefits in a timely manner. In order to give employers incentive to comply, lawmakers passed a provision of OCGA 34-9-221 that allows for injured employees to seek the imposition of statutory penalties for late benefits payments.
clock.jpg
Specifically, the law states benefits must be paid weekly, with the first becoming due on the 21st day after employer has knowledge of injury or death and has to be paid via electronic transfer. Payments that are not paid when due automatically accrue a 15 percent late penalty. Payments that are more than 20 days late accrue a 20 percent late fee.

These late penalties are payable not to the state but directly to the injured worker. However, that injured worker needs to file a claim for benefits, and it helps to have an experienced workers' compensation lawyer. Also, it's important to make those claims within a timely fashion. Otherwise, as the recent case of Marta v. Reid illustrates, the opportunity may be forever lost.

Continue reading "Marta v. Reid - Late Payments in Workers' Compensation Claims" »

September 14, 2014

Hayes v. Rosenbaum Signs - Employer Can't Take Inconsistent Positions on Work Injury Claim

Our Atlanta work injury lawyers expect employers to challenge workers' compensation claims on the grounds that they weren't actually caused by job duties. We also sometimes anticipate challenges to ongoing benefits, based on argument the underlying work injury has largely healed and other conditions have come into play.
balance1.jpg
However, in the recent case of Hayes v. Rosenbaum Signs, the employer initially agreed to cover medical costs. But then the employer stopped. When the worker filed a petition, the employer conceded the worker's job was a major contributing factor to his need for medical treatment. The case was dismissed. A year later, the employer again denied treatment, this time based on an evaluation by a new doctor indicating the original injury was likely not work-related.

Ultimately, the South Dakota Supreme Court was asked to weigh in the matter, and decide whether the employer was judicially estopped from taking this kind of inconsistent position.

Continue reading "Hayes v. Rosenbaum Signs - Employer Can't Take Inconsistent Positions on Work Injury Claim" »

August 25, 2014

Harris v. Millennium Hotel - Same-Sex Partnership and Workers' Compensation Benefits

Workers' compensation benefits are intended to aid an employee and his or her dependents in the event serious injury or death arises in the course of job-related functions.
holdmyhand.jpg
Generally, for purposes of benefit collection, "spouses" are defined under workers' compensation law as individuals married to injured workers. Usually, live-in boyfriends and girlfriends are excluded from receiving workers' compensation benefits. But what if the couple is precluded by law from marrying?

Georgia, like many other states, has implemented a same-sex marriage ban that forbids homosexual couples from being married. The legislature banned it in 1996, and a constitutional amendment underscoring the same was passed in 2004.

Still, our Atlanta workers' compensation attorneys recognize there may be some hope for homosexual couples in this regard, given the recent precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court's determination that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional, as well as the Alaska Supreme Court in Harris v. Millennium Hotel.

Continue reading "Harris v. Millennium Hotel - Same-Sex Partnership and Workers' Compensation Benefits" »

August 20, 2014

Gregory v. Cott - Workers' Compensation Exclusive Remedy for Some Injured Health Workers

Health care workers, including those who provide in-home care, are at high risk for violence on the job, especially when working with patients suffering from dementia, accompanied by aggression.
blackandwhitecrime.jpg
However, these workers may have difficulty securing damages from the patient and/or the patient's family if injured in an attack by the patient. In many of these cases, our Atlanta workers' compensation lawyers recognize workers' compensation benefits are likely to be the only remedy.

The recent case of Gregory v. Cott, decided recently by the California Supreme Court, illustrates the issues.

Continue reading "Gregory v. Cott - Workers' Compensation Exclusive Remedy for Some Injured Health Workers" »

August 10, 2014

Cruz v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board - Court Weighs Proof Burden for Injured Undocumented Workers

It's been well-established by courts across the country - including Georgia - that undocumented and illegal immigrants who sustain work injuries are entitled to collect worker's compensation insurance benefits from their employer.
tirednesssetsin.jpg
Further, our Atlanta workers' compensation attorneys know that one of the key hurdles in any work injury claim is proving the worker has been unable to obtain gainful employment since the injury and proximately as a result of the disability.

What the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently ruled in a split decision in Cruz v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, where the employer sought to cut benefits to an injured, undocumented worker, was that the employer had the burden of proof with regard to the assertion that the worker was unable to find work because of his undocumented status, rather than his work injury. Additionally, the court found the worker's invocation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during a hearing before the state worker's compensation board didn't constitute substantial evidence of the worker's alleged lack of legal status to work in the U.S.

Continue reading "Cruz v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board - Court Weighs Proof Burden for Injured Undocumented Workers" »

August 1, 2014

Higginbotham v. WSI - Disputing Conclusions of Vocational Rehabilitation Report

In Georgia work accidents, employees who have suffered injures that are not considered catastrophic may be entitled to vocational rehabilitation. This is a service offered when a worker is no longer able to perform his or her previous job, but may still be able to do some type of work after some additional help to enter that field.
withoutface2.jpg
The employer may have to pay for this service if the workers' compensation board or court orders it. Workers don't necessarily have to participate, but should know they risk a reduction or elimination of benefits if they don't, under O.C.G.A. 34-9-200.1.

Workers should know too that reports from vocational consultants can potentially impact their ability to collect benefits if it is determined they are able to perform other types of jobs, even if they can no longer do the work they previously did. Having an experienced Atlanta workers' compensation lawyer to help dispute the conclusions of these reports in some cases can help preserve your entitlement to benefits.

Continue reading "Higginbotham v. WSI - Disputing Conclusions of Vocational Rehabilitation Report" »

July 23, 2014

Study: Undocumented Workers Face Danger on the Job

A study conducted recently by a team of researchers with Cornell University and Penn State University reveals that undocumented Mexican workers receive no wage premium for working in hazardous conditions, whereas most other groups do.
worker1.jpg
The study, The Occupational Cost of Being Illegal in the United States: Legal Status, Job Hazards, and Compensating Differentials, published in the journal International Migration Review, indicates these workers receive low or no compensating differential, despite working in fields where the fatality rate, exposure to toxic materials and the risk of falls is high.

Our Atlanta workers' compensation lawyers know that employers of undocumented workers take advantage of the fear that any reporting of work injuries might result in potential deportation.

Continue reading "Study: Undocumented Workers Face Danger on the Job" »