by Jennifer M. Smith, Esq.

Director Elizabeth Gobeil at the Appellate Division led a discussion about recent Appellant Division decisions. These cases are not binding, but do provide good insight into the position the Board is likely to take on specific legal issues. A summary of several of the cases are provided here:

    • “Rest Break” Defense – Employee needs to be free to act as she chooses.
      In this case, the employee suffered an accident while on the employer’s premises during a regularly scheduled lunch break. The Court of Appeals found that the employee was not free from the employer’s demands, and therefore the employer/ insurer’s “rest break” defense was precluded. The employee testified and there was a sign in the break room which indicated that employees were not permitted to leave the break area and go to the main concourse without permission. The Court of Appeals emphasized that because of the sign posting, the employee was not free to use her time as she wished. Two important components of the “rest break” defense are that the injury occur during a 1) regularly scheduled rest break and 2) at a time that the employee is free to act as she chooses. There was a discussion about whether the outcome would have been different if there was testimony about the purpose of the sign. For instance, if it was relating to safety or was posted by the facility where the employee worked, but not by the employer, then this may have changed the outcome.
    • Ingress/ Egress Rule – Access Road must be owned, maintained or controlled by employer.
      The Court of Appeals determined that an employee’s fatal accident on an access road leading to the employer’s premises did not fall under the Ingress/ Egress rule and therefore was not compensable. The Court concluded that the access road was not part of the employer’s premises, although the employer’s premises could only be accessed by this private access road. Although accidents occurring while an employee is traveling to and from work are typically not included, the period or course of employment generally includes a reasonable time for going to and coming from the place of work while on the employer’s premises or between separate employment premises owned, maintained or controlled by the employer. In this case, although the access road was the only road leading to the employer, it was shared by two other employers and the employer in this case did not have the right to control access to the road and did not maintain the road.
  • WC-240 Light Duty Job Offer – What qualifies as a justified refusal.
    In this case, the Court of Appeals concluded that the employee was justified in refusing a light duty job offer when the job was 18 miles from the employee’s home because, based on the totality of the facts, accepting the position would have constituted “an unusual and considerable disruption” in the employee’s life. Here, the position was within the employee’s physical restrictions but the job offer was further away than the original position. The employer, a staffing agency, knew before hiring the employee that he could only accept positions within his city of residence due to transportation issues. As the Court pointed out, pursuant to O.C.G.A § 34-9-240, the Board has the discretion to determine whether an employee’s refusal of proffered work is justified by considering factors such as geographic relocation or travel conditions which would disrupt the employee’s life. The Court emphasized, though, that its decision does not conclude that “as a matter of law” 18 miles is too great commute. In this situation, given the totality of the circumstances, the distance of 18 miles was too disruptive to the employee and therefore the refusal was justified.