Georgia’s Second Highest Court Reaffirms that Companies Cannot Use Employee Violations of Workplace Rules to Deny Workers’ Compensation Benefits

As we all know, no one is perfect. And this is often the case for employees who are injured at work.  Employees arrive late, skip training, disobey instructions, ignore warnings, and violate various workplace rules and policies. But employees are not automatically barred from obtaining workers’ compensation benefits just because their injury took place while they were violating a rule or failing to heed a warning from management. A recent decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals helped clarify when an employee’s misconduct may preclude benefits and when it will not.

On November 5, 2012, Adrian Burdette, a cell-tower technician for Chandler Telecom, LLC, was assigned to work at the top of a cell tower along with the “lead tower hand” of his crew.  Prior to their shift, the men were told by their supervisor that they were to climb down the tower and to not use “controlled descent” to lower themselves down. Controlled descent is an industry term to describe rappelling with ropes at a safe and controlled speed. All cell-tower technicians at Chandler Telecom were required to be trained in controlled descent, but only for rescue situations.

When their work was almost complete, the crew lead reminded Mr. Burdette to climb down the tower.  Mr. Burdette, however, told the crew lead that he wanted to use a controlled descent, and that he had done so many times before. The crew lead warned Mr. Burdette that their supervisor “will be mad if you do it” and that Mr. Burdette would “have to deal with the consequences if you don’t listen . . . .”  The crew lead then instructed Mr. Burdette two or three more times to climb down.  Contrary to his supervisor’s prior instructions and the crew lead’s multiple warnings against doing so, Mr. Burdette began a controlled descent and ultimately fell a significant distance, causing severe injuries to his ankle, leg, and hip.

After the accident, Mr. Burdette sought workers’ compensation benefits from his employer for his injuries. Following a hearing before an administrative law judge and an appeal to the Georgia State Board of Workers’ Compensation, his request for benefits was denied because his injuries resulted from his decision to make a controlled descent in direct violation of his supervisor’s instructions, which constituted “willful misconduct” under Georgia law (OCGA § 34-9-17(a)).

According to the Georgia Code, “willful misconduct” by an employee is an affirmative defense to a claim for workers’ compensation benefits, which means that no compensation will be allowed for an injury or death due to an employee’s willful misconduct.  While there is no definition of willful misconduct, the Supreme Court of Georgia has ruled that,

The mere violation of rules, when not willful or intentional, is not ‘willful misconduct’. If the workman is acting within the scope of his employment, mere disregard of a rule or order does not become such misconduct, unless the disobedience be in fact willful or deliberate, and not a mere thoughtless act, done on the spur of the moment.

In addition, the Supreme Court has explained that willful misconduct “involves conduct of quasi criminal nature, the intentional doing of something, either with the knowledge that it is likely to result in serious injury, or with a wanton and reckless disregard of its probable consequences.”  Generally, “mere violations of instructions, order, rules, ordinances, and statutes, and the doing of hazardous acts where the danger is obvious, do not, without more, as a matter of law, constitute [willful] misconduct.”

Applying these standards to Mr. Burdette’s case, on October 30, 2015, the Georgia Court of Appeals found in Burdette v. Chandler Telecom, LLC, that Mr. Burdette’s actions did not rise to the level of willful misconduct and that Mr. Burdette was not barred from filing a workers’ compensation claim. The Appeals Court acknowledged that Mr. Burdette intentionally violated a work rule, as well as his supervisor’s and lead crew’s explicit instructions.  It also noted that Mr. Burdette lacked some of the necessary equipment for a proper controlled descent.  But nevertheless, the Court ruled that Mr. Burdette’s conduct was not quasi criminal in nature and he did not intentionally act with knowledge that it would likely result in serious injury or with a wanton and reckless disregard of its probable consequences.

In its analysis of the facts, the Appeals Court found instructive several prior workers’ compensation cases that involved willful misconduct defenses by employers:

• an employee who was injured after falling from shelves that she was expressly instructed not to step on, did not commit willful misconduct and was not barred from recovering workers’ compensation benefits (Wilbro v. Mossman, 207 Ga.App. 387, 427 S.E.2d 857 (1993)),

• a salesman who was injured while doing “wheelies” on a bicycle in a warehouse during the course of his work duties, engaged in hazardous conduct where the possibility of danger was obvious, but such conduct did not constitute willful misconduct (Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Amerine, 139 Ga.App. 702, 703–04, 229 S.E.2d 516 (1976)),

• a graveyard watchman’s “unwise” use of a loaded firearm to hammer an engine part on the vehicle he used to patrol the graveyard, which resulted in his death, did not constitute willful misconduct (City of Atlanta v. Madaris, 130 Ga.App. 783, 783, 785(2), 204 S.E.2d 439 (1974)),

• a widow of an employee who was killed in an accident when he had a blood alcohol level of .23 percent and was driving the wrong way down the interstate was barred from receiving workers’ compensation benefits because his death was due to his own willful misconduct (Commc’ns, Inc. v. Cannon, 174 Ga.App. 820, 820, 331 S.E.2d 112 (1985)), and

• an employee who was injured while illegally “jaywalking” across a highway was barred from receiving workers compensation benefits due to his own willful misconduct (Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bray, 136 Ga.App. 587, 587–88, 590, 222 S.E.2d 70 (1975)).

The Burdette decision reaffirms the general rule in Georgia that a mere violation of instructions or rules does not automatically bar an injured employee from obtaining workers’ compensation benefits. Employees should not be deterred from reporting an injury or claiming their workers’ compensation rights under the law just because they may have failed to comply with company policy or disregarded an employer’s warning.

The Poirier Law Firm has over 15 years of experience representing injured Georgia employees in complex workers’ compensation cases. If you or a family member has been hurt at work, call Poirier Law today for a free consultation.