On October 17, 2008, the Georgia Court of Appeals decided the case of Clarke v. Country Home Bakers, 2008 Ga. App. Lexis 1109. This case involved a simple issue of whether an inmate who suffered serious injuries while working at bakery should recover workers’ compensation benefits. In this case, the inmate was not allowed to recover workers’ compensation benefits in the form of medical care and income benefits due to the fact that he was working for a private employer through the Department of Corrections work release program. Thus, he was not an employee under the Workers’ Compensation Act.
There is a law in Georgia that excludes, from workers’ compensation coverage, inmates or persons participating in a work release program, community service program, or similar program as part of the punishment for violation of a state’s law
O.C.G.A. 34 9 1(2) states, in pertinent part, that, “Inmates or persons participating in a work release program, community service program, or similar program as part of the punishment for violation of a municipal ordinance pursuant to Code Section 36-32-5 or a county ordinance or a state law shall not be deemed to be an employee while participating in work or training or while going to and from the work site or training site, unless such inmate or person is employed for private gain in violation of Code Section 42-1-5 or Code Section 42-8-70 or unless the municipality or county had voluntarily established a policy, on or before January 1, 1993, to provide workers’ compensation benefits to such individuals.”
In this case, the inmate’s work was voluntary. The Claimant’s argument was that because his work was voluntary, it was not “part of the punishment” as stated in the statute in question. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision that because the work release program was “part of his punishment”, the claimant was not an employee under the law for workers’ compensation purposes.
While this case presents potentially negative implications for injured workers, this case would only affect the rather rare instance in which inmates in work release programs are injured. I am not sure whether this decision or the law upon which it is based make a whole lot of sense in all cases. For example, many private companies benefit from prison labor or work release programs. This case and the statute discussed above seem to insulate such employers from workers’ compensation claims when people get hurt on-the-job. While, perhaps, this “protection” is an incentive to hire, train, and help people in the justice system, this could adversely affect a worker who is severely injured in a work accident.
