Taylor v. Argos USA: Georgia Case Law Update re “Justified” Refusal to Accept Light Duty Employment
On January 31, 2025, the Georgia Court of Appeals published an opinion that may have dramatically expanded the circumstances in which a Claimant’s failure to accept suitable light duty employment is “justified” under OCGA § 34-9- 240(a). Spoiler alert: this could have widespread negative impacts for Employers and Insurers and result in increases in both claim values and litigation.
This was a compensable claim in which the Claimant initially returned to light duty work through a third-party non-profit until the location closed in March of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In April of 2020, the Employer/Insurer informed the Claimant that light duty work was available at the Employer’s facility. However, the Claimant was a 67-year-old with diabetes who was scared to return to work in light of the ongoing pandemic. The Claimant was “high risk” and required to “shelter in place.” When he refused to return to work, the Employer/Insurer suspended benefits and later terminated the Claimant for job abandonment.
The Claimant requested a hearing for TTD benefits. The ALJ found that the Claimant was justified in refusing to return to work because his safety concerns were not addressed, and those concerns were reasonable given his underlying health issues. The Employer/Insurer appealed to the Board who determined that the Claimant was not justified in refusing the light duty job. Specifically, they held that the Claimant’s reasons for refusing light duty were related to a personal health issue and corresponding safety concerns rather than his work-related injury or physical inability to perform the job because of his work-related injuries. The Superior Court affirmed the Board’s decision, and the Claimant appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Citing its prior 1998 opinion in Wal-Mart Store, Inc., v. Harris, the Court of Appeals concluded that the Board erred in finding the Claimant’s refusal to return to work was unjustified. The Court of Appeals held that for a refusal to be justified, it must relate to the physical capacity of the employee to perform the job; the employee’s ability or skill to perform the job; or factors such as geographic relocation or travel conditions which would disrupt the employee’s life. They found no requirement that the refusal to return to work correlate to the work injury in order to be “justified” under OCGA § 34-9- 240(a). Thus, the Claimant’s refusal to return to work due to his comorbidities related to his physical capacity to perform the job and was therefore justified.
In doing so, the Court of Appeals has seemingly expanded the scope of what refusals may now be considered “justified.” Of course, there are some facts in this case that may not apply to future workers’ compensation claims in Georgia. First, this case took place during the unprecedented Covid-19 pandemic in which many businesses and employers across the country were shut down and government directives to social distance and shelter in place were prevalent. As most of the world has (at least for now) returned to “normal,” a refusal to return to work in 2025 due to fears of the Covid-19 pandemic may not be “justified.” Moreover, the Claimant’s fears here related to his physical underlying comorbidities. In other words, it is not clear if refusals based on “fear of reinjury” or other psychological conditions may would relate to the Claimant’s physical inability to perform a job within the meaning of OCGA § 34-9- 240(a) and therefore be “justifed.”
If you have any questions regarding the Taylor v. Argos USA decision, how it may affect your claims, or any other issues in Georgia workers’ compensation, we are always happy to help!
From: Jordan Goldring | Atlanta Attorney