Georgia Law Blog

As part of my Georgia Workers' Compensation Law Blog, I will provide case law updates on all new workers' compensation cases from the Georgia Court of Appeals & Georgia Supreme Court.  As of today (January 18, 2007), there have been no new cases in 2007.  As I have previously stated, my goal is two-fold.  First, I want to provide information for injured workers, their families, and the general public about Georgia Workers' Compensation.  Second, I want to provide valuable information to attorneys, especially non-workers' compensation practitioners, about Georgia workers' compensation law.  This post is more directed toward the attorneys who read my blog.

In this posting, I will highlight a recent case which I think is quirky. I also think the importance of this case will become more apparent as time passes.  My gut feeling is that this case will have negative implications for the injured worker in years to come. 

The Footstar case can be found here:  Footstar, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.

Statutes of Limitation in Georigia workers' compensation cases are admittedly tricky.  Although this case grew out of fight between two insurance companies, it affects injured workers adversely.  Generally, there is a two year Statute of Limitations in a change of condition case.  In its most basic form, a change of condition case means what it says: an injured worker's condition changes for the better or worse.  In many cases, an injured worker gets better, the weekly benefits stop, and later gets worse and again seeks weekly benefits.  In these cases, the injured worker generally has a two-year Statute of Limitations in which to file a claim for additional weekly benefits. 

The question that naturally arises is as follows - - what happens if the injured worker never receives weekly income benefit checks?  What is the Statute of Limitations in these cases?  Does it matter if a judge issues an award in favor of the Claimant allowing medical care but awards no income benefits?  In Georgia, as in many states, there are "Medical Only" cases. These are cases in which the only benefit supplied by the insurance company is medical care. 

Perhaps the biggest problem this case presents is that it leaves more questions unanswered than answered.  In my opinion, it also opened a huge can of worms for insurers to hang their hats as the rights of injured workers are further depleted.

As an interesting side-note, I have a case some years back before the same Administrative Law Judge.  In this case, his ruling was similar to the Footstar case in that he denied my client's application for income benefits, but issued an award in favor of my client for medical care.  My case was settled after I filed an appeal, but I often wondered how it might have turned-out if it were not settled.