Summer’s Court of Appeals Decision Holding Statutes of Limitation Do Not Apply in Catastrophic Claims Reversed by Georgia Supreme Court

We reported last July on the Georgia Court of Appeals’ decision in Barnes v. Roseburg Forest Products Co., 775 S.E.2d 748 (2015), in which the appeals court essentially held that the statutes of limitation for change in condition and fictional new injury cases did not apply to catastrophically injured employees. On June 6, 2016, the Georgia Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion, reversed the court of appeals on both issues.

The facts of this case played out as follows: Willie Barnes sustained a traumatic work injury in 1993 which resulted in a below-the-knee amputation.  Roseburg Forest Products (“Roseburg”) accepted the claim as catastrophic and began paying TTD benefits.  In 1994, after Mr. Barnes began walking with a prosthesis, he returned to work at Roseburg, and the carrier suspended TTD benefits.

Mr. Barnes continued working for Roseburg until September 2009 when he, along with many others, was laid off.  In 2012, Mr. Barnes filed a workers’ compensation claim seeking recommencement of TTD benefits under two different theories: (1) he initially sought benefits under the original 1993 date of injury due to a “change in condition;” and (2) he later filed another Request for Hearing alleging a “fictional new injury” as of the date of his termination in 2009.

The Administrative Law Judge denied both the change in condition and fictional new injury claims finding they both were barred by the applicable statutes of limitation.  The Appellate Division of the State Board affirmed, as did the superior court.  The court of appeals, however, in a surprising decision, reversed, holding that neither of Mr. Barnes’ claims was barred by the statutes of limitation.  The Georgia Supreme Court rarely hears workers’ compensation cases but granted certiorari here.

O.C.G.A. § 34-9-104(b) provides a two-year statute of limitation for claims for benefits based on a change in condition. Without any citation to controlling authority, the court of appeals last summer held that the Georgia Legislature intended to treat catastrophically injured workers differently than those workers whose injuries were not designated catastrophic. The court of appeals’ decision essentially allowed a catastrophically injured employee to receive benefits indefinitely, regardless of how long it had been since the employee received either TTD and/or TPD benefits from the employer and insurer.

The court of appeals seemed to base its decision on the fact that Mr. Barnes’ injury was designated catastrophic, and that the catastrophic designation had never been formally removed by the State Board following Mr. Barnes’ return to work after the accident, regardless of the fact that Mr. Barnes worked for several years thereafter.

With regard to Mr. Barnes’ fictional new injury claim, the court of appeals held that Roseburg’s provision of medical treatment in 2011, the most recent time Mr. Barnes received a new prosthetic leg, tolled the one-year “all issues” statute of limitations under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-82(a).

In Roseburg Forest Products Co. v. Barnes, Case Nos. S15G1808 and S15G1811, the Supreme Court reversed both of the court of appeals’ rulings.  First, with regard to Mr. Barnes’ claim that he was entitled to receive income benefits for a change in condition based on the fact his 1993 injury remained designated as catastrophic, the Supreme Court held that, regardless of his 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 that right, he must make a claim for those benefits within two years of the last weekly TTD and/or TPD benefits payment.  Because Mr. Barnes filed his claim sixteen (16) years after he last received TTD benefits, his claim for recommencement of TTD benefits based on a change in condition was time-barred.

With regard to Mr. Barnes’ fictional new injury claim, the Supreme Court held it also was time-barred.  The fictional new injury claim was based on a September 11, 2009 date of accident (the day after his layoff took effect).  Mr. Barnes received remedial treatment in November 2009, which would have extended the time period for him to file a fictional new injury claim until November 2010, but he did not file until November 2012.  Moreover, the Supreme Court held the treatment provided in December 2011, when he received a new prosthetic leg, which the court of appeals found tolled the statute of limitation, did not revive Mr. Barnes’ claim because it was already time barred as of November 2010, a year after he had last received treatment.

This is an important decision and a victory for employers and insurers.  The Georgia Court of Appeals decision last summer was akin to legislation from the bench.  The Georgia Supreme Court has now reminded the Georgia Court of Appeals that its job is to interpret the statutes as the legislature enacted them.  The Georgia Supreme Court stressed in its opinion that there is a need for closure and finality in workers’ compensation cases, as in all cases, and had the legislature intended to create different limitations periods for catastrophic versus non-catastrophic claims, it would have done so.  As a final aside, nothing in either the court of appeals or the Supreme Court’s rulings had any impact on Mr. Barnes’ right to continue to receive reasonably required medical treatment.

If you have any questions regarding this change and/or any other issues, please feel free to call me or any other member of the Workers’ Compensation team at Goodman McGuffey LLP.