GA Tip of the Week – Burdette case (Willful Misconduct)
BY:
A new case was just ruled on by the Georgia Court of Appeals which I think is worth bringing to your attention, Burdette v. Chandler Telecom, LLC. In Burdette, the claimant was working as a cell-tower technician and when their work was almost complete, the lead-man working with him high up on the tower instructed the claimant to climb down the tower, but the claimant instead responded that he wanted to use a controlled descent instead. Even after the lead-man instructed the claimant to climb down the tower 2 or 3 more times, the claimant ignored these requests, prepared his equipment, and began his controlled descent. Shortly thereafter (and not surprisingly), the claimant fell a great distance from the tower and landed on an “ice bridge,” which caused serious injuries to his ankle, leg, and hip.
The Employer/Insurer denied the claim pursuant to OCGA § 34-9-17 (a), as they asserted that the claimant willfully disobeyed instructions given to him by the lead-man when the claimant stated he was going to rappel down rather than climb down, and ignored the lead-man’s repeated instructions to climb down. The ALJ ruled in favor of the Employer/Insurer and the Board affirmed the ruling. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts, citing to other holdings by the Georgia Supreme Court. They cited to other cases where the Supreme Court has explained that willful misconduct “involves conduct of a 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.
In Burdette, the Court of Appeals noted that “the mere violation of a work rule or instructions and engaging in a hazardous act in which the danger is obvious is insufficient to constitute willful misconduct such as to bar recovery of benefits.”
This is clearly a difficult and curious finding given the specifics of the case. While I would certainly recommend that you continue to use 34-9-17(a) as a litigation tool, even if just for settlement purposes, this case does remind us that its not always going to be a slam dunk. Please call or email if you have any questions on this case or any other matters.