Panel of Physicians Posting Requirements for Construction and Off-Site Employees Post Lilienthal Ruling

Maintaining control of medical treatment in a workers’ compensation case is key to mitigating ongoing exposure. To do so, employers and insurers must comply with the guidelines provided for in OCGA §§ 34-9-200 and 34-9-201, which requires an employer to furnish the injured employee with medical treatment that is reasonably required. See, OCGA § 34-9-200(a). To satisfy that requirement an employer can maintain a list of six physicians that the employee can accept services from. To limit treatment to this list of doctors, aka the panel of physicians, the employer must ensure the panel of physicians is posted in a prominent location to ensure all employees understand the function of the panel and their right to select a doctor from that list if they are injured on the job. See, OCGA 34-9-201(c); see also, McCray v. United Electric Co., A26A0115, Ga.App. 1, 10 (2026) (citing Brafasher v. US Xpress Enters., 328 Ga.App. 20, 761 S.E.2d 448 (2014)). If the employer fails to explain the panel of physicians to the employee or does not post the panel of physicians in a prominent location the employee may then select any physician to manage their work-related injury at the expense of the employer. See, OCGA § 34-9-201(f).

The Court of Appeals of Georgia previously addressed the meaning of “prominent” in the context of OCGA § 34-9-201(c) in Lilienthal v. JLK, Inc., 367 Ga.App. 721, 888 S.E.2d 310 (2023). In Lilienthal, the Court of Appeals of Georgia held that OCGA § 34-9-201(c) requires prominent placement in a conspicuous or easily seen location; accessibility alone may not be enough. Id. at 726 (holding that posting the panel of physicians in a locked resource room was not a “prominent” location under OCGA 34-9-201(c)).

The Court of Appeals of Georgia recently had the opportunity to test the reasoning in Lilienthal to the context of a construction site in McCray v. United Electric Co & Amerisure, A26A0115, Ga.App. (2026).

Facts

In McCray, the claimant is the executor of the estate of an electrician, Thomas, who injured his shoulder working on the construction site of a new medical clinic.

Thomas timely reported the accident and was shown a panel of physicians by a foreman at the construction site. The panel of physicians that Thomas reviewed was taped to the underside of the lid of a “gang box.” Trial testimony revealed that:

1. The “gang box” is a large tool box that is sometimes locked;
2. There is a similar “gang box” at every jobsite;
3. Employee meetings were held at the gang box;
4. The Panel of Physicians was posted on the back side of the laminated sheet so an employee would not be able to see the Panel of Physicians when they open the gang box. Id. at 1-6.

The Panel of Physicians was also posted on a bulletin board at the employer’s headquarters located 49 miles from the construction site. Id. at 7-9.

Thomas filed a hearing request seeking authorization of medical treatment with an off-panel physician on the grounds that the Panel of Physicians taped in the gang box was invalid because it was not posted in a prominent location. Id. at 2-3.

The employer/insurer objected to the claimant’s request for benefits and argued that the panel of physicians was posted in a prominent place as required by OCGA § 34-9-201(c) by posting it on a bulletin board at their corporate office 49 miles from where the incident occurred. Id. at 7.

Procedural Posture

At trial, the Administrative Law Judge denied the Claimant’s request for benefits and found that taping the Panel of Physicians to the lid of the gang box was a valid posting by the Employer. Id. at 2.

The State Board adopted the findings of the Administrative Law Judge and expressly agreed with Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that taping the panel to the lid of the gang box was a valid manner and a reasonable place to post the panel of physicians at the construction site. Id. at 3.

The claimant appealed the State Board’s decision to the Superior Court which adopted the findings of the State Board. Id.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Georgia disagreed with the lower courts and held that the Superior Court erred in affirming the Board’s decision because the finding that the employer had posted a panel of physicians as required by OCGA § 34-9-201(c) was erroneous. Id. at 1, 3-4.

Citing Lilienthal, the Court of Appeals of Georgia concluded that the administrative law judge improperly relied on the concept of accessibility to the panel of physicians rather than determining that the employer had posted the panel in a prominent place as required by OCGA 34-9-201(c). Id. at 4-10. Because of this error, the court of appeals further reasoned that the Administrative law Judge and State Board failed to address evidence that the panel could not be seen when the gang box lid was open, nor did the lower courts make a finding as to whether taping a panel of physicians to the underside of the lid of a sometimes locked box was “prominent, conspicuous or immediately noticeable” within the meaning of OCGA 34-9-201(c) and Lilienthal. Id. at 8-10.

The Court further noted that because the Administrative Law Judge, State Board, nor the Superior Court made factual findings and legal conclusions concerning the employer/insurer’s argument that the panel of physicians was posted in a prominent place at its corporate location, the court could not rule on the issue. Id. at 8.

Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case back down to the State Board to reconsider the evidence within the application of the prominent requirement provided for in OCGA 34-9-201(c). Id. at 9-10.

Practical Considerations

On remand, the State Board could provide much needed guidance on how to ensure compliance with the posting requirements provided for in OCGA 34-9-201(c) when the employee is working at an offsite location. The State Board may also determine if posting a panel of physicians at corporate headquarters or a nearby satellite office meets and/or mitigates the circumstances when the employee is injured at an offsite location.

While we wait for finality on the Court’s decision in McCray, consider a few key takeaways:

1. To the extent possible, post the panel in a central location that is visible without addition action by the employee.
2. Consider posting the panel of physicians physically and virtually for offsite and/or remote employees.
3. Find a way to incorporate the panel of physicians into the location employees are directed to go to be assigned job duties.
4. Ensure all offsite supervisors and management know the function and location of the panel of physicians before each offsite assignment begins;
5. Avoid posting the panel of physicians behind a cover page, backwards, etc.
6. Consider posting the panel of physicians in several different locations.

Disclaimer:

This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Hall Booth Smith, P.C. and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.