In a workers’ compensation case defended by Jones Cork Partners Dee Sams and Callie Bryan, the Court of Appeals of Georgia recently affirmed the decisions below that denied the employee’s claim for benefits after he was injured in an automobile accident while traveling to a motel before beginning work at an out-of-state job site the next day, as the injuries did not arise out of and in the course of his employment and he was not a continuous employee at the time of the injury. The more important legal issue in this case decided by the Court was whether the employer/insurer’s denial of the claim was time barred. The Court held that the a prescription card the employer/insurer gave the employee was not an income benefit and, therefore, did not constitute compensation under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-221(h). Accordingly, the statute was inapplicable, the denial of the claim was not time barred, and the employee’s reliance on it provided no basis for reversing the award below in favor of the employer/insurer. See Kendrick v. SRA Track, Inc., A17A0094, 2017 WL 2645323 (Ga. Ct. App. June 20, 2017). Dee and Callie both represent employers and insurers in the defense of workers’ compensation claims and also represent insurers and insureds in the defense of personal injury claims. https://www.jonescork.com/attorneys/rufus-sams/, https://www.jonescork.com/attorneys/callie-bryan/
In a workers’ compensation case defended by Jones Cork Partners Dee Sams and Callie Bryan, the Court of Appeals of Georgia recently affirmed the decisions below that denied the employee’s claim for benefits after he was injured in an automobile accident while traveling to a motel before beginning work at an out-of-state job site the next day, as the injuries did not arise out of and in the course of his employment and he was not a continuous employee at the time of the injury. The more important legal issue in this case decided by the Court was whether the employer/insurer’s denial of the claim was time barred. The Court held that the a prescription card the employer/insurer gave the employee was not an income benefit and, therefore, did not constitute compensation under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-221(h). Accordingly, the statute was inapplicable, the denial of the claim was not time barred, and the employee’s reliance on it provided no basis for reversing the award below in favor of the employer/insurer. See Kendrick v. SRA Track, Inc., A17A0094, 2017 WL 2645323 (Ga. Ct. App. June 20, 2017). Dee and Callie both represent employers and insurers in the defense of workers’ compensation claims and also represent insurers and insureds in the defense of personal injury claims. https://www.jonescork.com/attorneys/rufus-sams/, https://www.jonescork.com/attorneys/callie-bryan/