On July 10, 2008 the Georgia Court of Appeals decided the case of McLendon v. Advertising That Works, 2008 Ga. App. Lexis 833. This case involved several dates of accidents and several and numerous WC-14 notices of claims. The attorney for the claimant dismissed with prejudice several WC-14 claims at the hearing. The appeal only concerns one date of accident of June 8, 2004. In this case, the WC-14 that is the subject of this appeal referenced the wrong date of accident. While ordinarily this is not fatal to a claim, the claimant did not show on the record that his claim arose out of a single occurrence or that he had simply been mistaken as to the date of injury.
The claimant also raised the argument that an amended WC-14 was filed which should relate back to the original WC-14 and correct the date of accident issue. However, due to the fact that there are numerous dates of injury in this case and lack of a clear record on appeal, the court of appeals upheld the decision from the State Board of Workers’ Compensation under the any evidence standard.
An issue in this case that I encounter very often concerns the applicability of the Civil Practice Act to Georgia’s workers’ compensation laws. It is my opinion that Georgia’s Civil Practice Act only applies to discovery issues in workers’ compensation cases under O.C.G.A. § 34 9 102(d)(1). I believe the Court of Appeals’ analysis regarding the effect of the Civil Practice Act is correct. Many attorneys attempt to relate provisions of the Civil Practice Act that have nothing to do with discovery to workers’ compensation cases.
I believe that this case has potentially negative ramifications for injured workers in Georgia if it is carried too far. First, claimants and their counsel should be certain to explain on the record if there is a discrepancy between the date of injury referenced in a WC-14 and the date of injury referenced at a hearing. I believe in the McLendon case, a simple explanation would have made things a lot clearer. Furthermore, there seems to be more ambiguity in this case as there were numerous dates of injury which were dismissed with prejudice at the hearing by the attorney for the claimant. This considerably muddied the waters.
The crux of the problem in this case is as follows. The worker was injured on June 8, 2004. When he hired his attorney, a WC-14 was filed on March 14, 2005 which is clearly within the one year statute of limitations applicable to the facts of this case under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-82. The problem lies in the fact that this WC-14 listed an accident date of July 16, 2004 and not the June 8, 2004 date of accident. Later, on July 12, 2005, the attorney filed a claim to correct the date of accident from July 16, 2004 to June 8, 2004. I believe the court of appeals in this case felt bound to rule against the claimant for the reasons discussed previously as well as the fact that the Claimant referred to medical records and a transcript which were not part of the appellate record. The Court of Appeals commented on this and stated that it is the responsibility of the parties to ensure that the documents relative to the disposition of an appeal be duly filed with the clerk of the Court of Appeals. In this case, I believe the result may have been different if the judges on the Court of Appeals had the hearing transcript and medical records in their possession.
This is fact-intensive decision based on very convoluted facts. I had to re-read the opinion several times to get a clear understanding of what happened. The weight this case should carry as binding case law should be minimal, if any. This is primarily due to the fact that the Court of Appeals did not have a complete record before it in deciding this appeal.
