Georgia Law Blog

On May 2, 2008, the Georgia Supreme Court decided the case of Sherman Concrete Pipe Co. v. Chinn. This case involves dependency benefits for a wife whose husband died in an on-the-job injury in 1990. While death cases are somewhat rare in Georgia workers’ compensation law, the Atlanta area has its fair share of workers who die on the job due to the vast population and diverse workforce. Primarily, many death cases were attributed to industries such as manufacturing and construction. In Douglas County, Georgia, where my Georgia workers’ compensation practice is located, there is historically a mix of service and manufacturing jobs. In the other counties in which I practice such as Paulding County, Haralson County and Carroll County, there are significant manufacturing and construction jobs in which workers may become severely injured or die in workers’ compensation accidents.

This case held that language contained in the law in 1990 stating that a dependent spouse’s entitlement to income benefits shall end at 65 or after payment of 400 weeks of benefits is unconstitutional. This case is a victory for injured workers’ families. However, the small number of injured workers’ families that this case impacts may dilute the overall positive effect of this case. Specifically, the court found that the 1989 version of OCGA 34-9-13(e) was unconstitutional.

The Georgia Supreme Court rationalized its decision on an old principle of Georgia Constitutional Law mandating that the content of bills passed by the Georgia General Assembly must correspond to the title of the specific act. The implications of this case could be very narrow or far-reaching, depending on the number of future legal challenges. Narrowly construed, this case applies only to the version of O.C.G.A. 34-9-13 that was in effect in 1990. The current statutory language is similar. In any event, this case was a victory for the widow of the worker who was killed in an on the job accident.

Posted by Jack E. Clay | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Georgia Workers' Compensation Case Update

Bookmark:

On March 24, 2008 the Georgia Court of Appeals decided the case of Smart Document Solutions v. Hall. Smart Document Solutions is an Atlanta based company that provides photocopying services to physicians and other medical providers. In this day and age, it becomes necessary for attorneys to order medical records in workers’ compensation and personal injury cases in Douglas County and throughout Georgia. I will attest first-hand that much of my small law firm’s time, which is located in Douglasville, Georgia, is spent ordering medical records and reviewing medical records and bills. In this case Smart Document Solutions filed a lawsuit against the Georgia State Board of Workers' Compensation seeking guidance regarding the appropriate free structure for photocopying services in workers’ compensation cases. Basically, there are two separate sources of authority governing the cost of photocopying medical records. First, there is a statute at OCGA 31 33 3(a) which is known as the Health Records Act. In the past, this law allows a higher cost for photocopying medical records than the rules set out by the State Board of Workers' Compensation. The simple issue in this case seems to be that Smart Document Solutions wanted some guidance as to what to charge parties for photocopying under the higher Georgia statute which allows a higher rate or to charge under the workers’ compensation scheme which allows a lower rate. The Court of Appeals in Atlanta, GA, held that the Georgia State Board of Workers' Compensation, rather than the Health Records Act, regulates medical photocopying charges in workers’ compensation cases.

This case is generally good for injured workers in that costs are a primary concern when ordering medical records. As previously discussed, my Douglasville Georgia workers’ compensation law firm handles many on-the-job injury cases. In each case, we must order medical records. We order medical records from providers throughout Atlanta and West Georgia, including Douglasville, Dallas, Hiram, Carrollton, and Haralson County. While sometimes the medical records are provided by the opposing attorney, the cost for these records is to be paid by whoever orders the medical records. This case actually stems from the proposition that the claimants may save money in costs which, if advanced by the law firm, eventually are deducted from the settlement at the end of the case. Unfortunately, the Georgia State Board of Workers' Compensation adopted the higher costs in the Health Records Act a short time prior to this case being decided.

Posted by Jack E. Clay | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Georgia Workers' Compensation Case Update

Bookmark:

On March 18, 2008 the Georgia Court of Appeals decided the case of McLeod v. Blase. This case presents another intersection where workers' compensation law meets tort law. This case was a personal injury case arising from Cobb County State Court, which is near Atlanta, Georgia, involving an athlete who was injured and tried to sue the athletic trainer for professional malpractice. The potential exposure of company doctors to personal injury lawsuits has been an interesting area of law within workers’ compensation, especially in Georgia. Historically, many companies had medical providers located at their factories or manufacturing facilities for employees to see if they were sick or hurt on the job. In McLeod, a professional basketball player was hurt and the athletic trainer was employed by the National Basketball Association. I believe that the player was playing for the Atlanta Hawks professional basketball team.

This case presents an interesting intersection between Atlanta professional sports and Georgia workers’ compensation law. In this case, the judge in Cobb County State Court granted the trainer’s Motion for Summary Judgment and disallowed the injured worker to sue the athletic trainer for the Atlanta Hawks. The rationale for this was that the athletic trainer was protected under the exclusive remedy provision of OCGA 34 9 11 as the athletic trainer was deemed a co employee to the professional athlete. This decision was upheld by the Georgia Court of Appeals. This case presents a hurdle for injured people in Atlanta and throughout Georgia. While the actual scenario in this case is rather narrow, it further limits the ability of employees who are injured through negligence of third parties such at athletic trainers to bring personal injury lawsuits. Georgia falls within a majority of states which do not allow tort actions against co employee physicians and other medical professionals.

Posted by Jack E. Clay | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Georgia Workers' Compensation Case Update

Bookmark: