Under Georgia law, employers that have regularly in service at least three employees are required to have workers’ compensation insurance in place.  The flat reading of the statute seems to be very straightforward. But the question is how do you construe “three employees regularly in service.” Does it depend on the nature of business, the nature of employment or its constancy? A recent Court of Appeals ruling shed more light into this matter.

In Wills v. Clay County, the appellant won a bid on a construction project for Clay County. To complete the project, the appellant hired the claimant and two other men. The appellant and claimant had a previous working relationship for 6-7 years and the appellant usually reached out to the claimant first when hired for a new project. During the project, the claimant slipped off the roof and injured his leg. The claimant filed a claim against the appellant and Clay County as the statutory employer. The Board granted the claimant’s claim against the appellant but denied the claim against the county because it was not the claimant’s statutory employer. The appellant appealed the Board’s finding that he had at least three employees regularly in service, which subjected him to the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act.

In his appeal, the appellant argued that although he hired three additional workers for the construction project, these employees were not “regularly in service” because their employment would end upon completion of the project. The Court of Appeals noted that “the word “regularly,” as used in the statute, refers to the question whether the occurrence is or is not in an established mode or plan in the operation of the business and has no reference to the constancy of the occurrence. Hence, the work may be intermittent and yet regular.”

In this case, the claimant testified that he and the appellant have worked with an additional person about two to three times a year and the appellant testified that near the time of the county job, he had two other jobs for which he hired three or four people. The Court emphasized that under Georgia law, an employer is subject to Workers’ Comp Act if the volume of the business increases such that the employer needs to hire more people and such that the employees were likely to be retained for a reasonably definite amount of time. Here, there was preponderance of evidence to prove that the appellant would likely to have at least three employees for reasonably definite due to two new additional projects. As such, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Board’s finding.

At the outset, this case seems to offer nothing more than a construction of the Workers’ Comp statute. However, its impact can be cognizable. In my years of practice, I’ve seen some employers hiring then dismissing their employees constantly to avoid “having at least three employees regularly in service” under the statute. This case sends a warning to employers and limits the employers’ games to escape their Workers’ Comp liability.

So if you or a family member has been hurt at work, call Poirier Law today for help and for a free consultation. The Poirier Law Firm routinely, successfully represents injured works in industrial accidents. You must have a zealous advocate fighting and protecting your rights.