 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
John W. Rooker & Associates v. Patterson11/17/2005
ANDREWS, P. J., PHIPPS and MIKELL, JJ.
We granted John W. Rooker & Associates' application for discretionary appeal in this workers' compensation case in which its request for a reduction in benefits based on a change in its employee's condition was denied by the administrative law judge, the Appellate Division of the State Board of Workers' Compensation, and the superior court. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
In reviewing a workers' compensation award, both this court and the superior court must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing before the appellate division. It is axiomatic that the findings of the [Board], when supported by any evidence, are conclusive and binding, and that neither the superior court nor this court has any authority to substitute itself as a fact finding body in lieu of the Board.
Viewed in this light, the record shows that Larry Patterson worked as a heavy equipment operator for Rooker (the employer) when he was injured in 1996. He received injuries to his back resulting in surgery to fuse his spine after he was accidentally run over by a pick-up truck. He had 30 years experience as a heavy equipment operator at the time of his injury. In 2001, Patterson received a workers' compensation award designating his injuries as catastrophic, and he began receiving total disability benefits.
In 2003, the employer sought to reduce his total disability benefits to partial disability benefits based on (1) Patterson's alleged return to work as a maintenance worker for an apartment complex; and (2) a change in Patterson's lifting restrictions and the alleged availability of jobs within those restrictions. The administrative law judge (ALJ) rejected the employer's arguments, and its decision that Patterson's benefits should not be reduced was affirmed without alteration by the appellate division of the Board and by the superior court.
1. The employer claims that this case should be remanded because the appellate division applied the wrong legal standard for change of condition when it reviewed the ALJ's decision. We disagree.
In Georgia, a change in condition for the better can be shown in more than one way.
he term "change in condition" means "a change in the wage-earning capacity, physical condition, or status of an employee . . ., which change must have occurred after the date on which the wage-earning capacity, physical condition, or status of the employee or other beneficiary was last established by award or otherwise."
When an employee's condition has improved to the point that no disability remains, the employer does not need to show that "work is available to [the employee]. Having recovered from the injury he received . . . , [the employee] is in the same position as every other member of the general work force." The standard is different for "employees whose disability has lessened and who are, therefore, capable of doing some work, but not the work they were capable of doing before they were injured." In these cases, the employer must show:
(1) a physical change for the better in the claimant; (2) an ability to return to work as a result of the physical change; and (3) the availability of work to terminate or decrease the loss of income resulting from work-related disability.
In this case, the employer asserted a change in condition based on the latter test only and complains that the appellate division applied the first test in which an employee completely recovers to the facts before it. While the appellate division may have decided an issue not before it by analyzing the first test, it also applied the l
Page 1 2 3 Georgia Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|