BETTER LATE THAN NEVER: GA Supreme Court reverses last summer’s COA decision which threatened to render WC statutes of limitation meaningless

Written by: Brian Mallow, Esq.

On Monday, the Georgia Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion, reversed a July 2015 decision of the Court of Appeals that severely restricted the application of both the “change in condition” statute of limitation and the “all issues” statute of limitation.

The employee, Willie Barnes, sustained a traumatic work injury in 1993, resulting in a below-the-knee amputation.  The Employer/Insurer accepted the injury as catastrophic and began paying TTD benefits.  In 1994, after he was fitted with a prosthetic leg, Barnes returned to work, and TTD benefits were suspended.  Barnes continued to work for the Employer until 2009 when he was terminated in a round of general lay-offs.

In 2012, Barnes filed a workers’ compensation claim, seeking recommencement of TTD benefits under the original 1993 date of injury.  Later in 2012, he filed a separate claim, alleging a “fictional new injury” based on the date that he was terminated in 2009.

The Administrative Law Judge denied both of Barnes’ claims finding them barred by the statutes of limitation.  The full Board affirmed, as did the trial court.  The Court of Appeals, however, in a surprising decision last summer, reversed, finding that neither of Barnes’ claims were barred by the statutes of limitation.

Although O.C.G.A. § 34-9-104(b) generally provides a two-year statute of limitation for seeking recommencement of income benefits based on a change in condition, the Court of Appeals held that the legislature intended to treat workers who received catastrophic injuries differently from workers who were less severely injured, allowing catastrophically injured employees to receive benefits indefinitely.  The Court of Appeals seemed to base its decision on the fact that Barnes’ injury was designated catastrophic and that the catastrophic designation had never been removed from the claim, even though Barnes had returned to work soon after the accident and worked for several years thereafter.  With regard to Barnes’ fictional injury claim, the Court of Appeals held that the Employer’s provision of medical treatment in 2011, when Barnes was fitted for a new prosthetic leg, tolled the one-year “all issues” statute of limitations under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-82(a).

In Rosenberg Forest Products Co. v. Barnes, Case Nos. S15G1808 and S15G1811, decided June 6, 2016, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals on both holdings.  First with regard to Barnes’ claim that he was entitled to receive income benefits indefinitely based on the fact that his 1993 injury remained designated as catastrophic, the Supreme Court held that regardless of Barnes’ having the right to receive weekly benefits for his catastrophic injury, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-104(b) makes clear that in order for an employee to enforce such a right, he must make a claim for those benefits within two years of the last weekly TTD benefit payment.  Because Barnes filed his claim 16 years after TTD was last paid, his claim was time barred.

With regard to Barnes’ fictional injury claim, the Supreme Court held that it too was time barred.  Barnes’ fictional injury claim was based on a 9/11/09 date of accident.  He had received remedial treatment in November 2009, which would have extended the time period for him to file his fictional injury claim until November 2010, but he did not file his claim until November 2012.  Importantly, the Supreme Court held that the treatment provided in December 2011, which the Court of Appeals found tolled the statute of limitation, did not revive Barnes’ claim, as it had already become time barred in November 2010.

This is an important victory for employer/insurers.  As the Supreme Court stressed in its opinion, there is a need for closure and finality in workers’ compensation cases, as in all cases.  The Court of Appeals’ decision threatened to do just the opposite, allowing injured employees to revive stale claims at any time, essentially rendering the statutes of limitation meaningless.