Bonus Stores, Inc. v. Hensley
309 Ga. App. 129
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Hensley sustained a March 2002 back injury while employed as general manager at Bill's Dollar Store, and Bonus Stores accepted the claim and paid benefits through 2008.
- Hensley sought a catastrophic designation, supported by a 2003 letter from Dr. Ensley stating total disability and a 2004 SSA residual functional capacity questionnaire showing severe limitations.
- A November 2007 vocational assessment by William Thompson opined there were no substantial jobs in the national economy for Hensley.
- Defendant offered multiple medical reports (Drs. Kelley, Dopson, Cassinelli) with opinions that Hensley could work with few or no restrictions; Cassinelli opined maximum medical improvement by 2009 with no remaining impairment.
- ALJ found the injury catastrophic and awarded TTD; Appellate Division reversed, finding the preponderance of credible evidence did not support catastrophe.
- Superior Court reversed the Appellate Division, ruling it applied an improper de novo standard of review; employer obtained discretionary appeal to Georgia Supreme Court, which reversed the Superior Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard of review for Appellate Division | Hensley argues Appellate Division applied de novo review. | Bonus Stores contends Appellate Division used the correct hybrid review under OCGA 34-9-103(a). | Appellate Division correctly weighed evidence; not de novo. |
| Evidence supporting catastrophic designation | Hensley seeks catastrophe based on Ensley and Thompson. | Employer argues Cassinelli and others show no catastrophic limitations. | Appellate Division’s non-catastrophic finding is supported by the preponderance of credible evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Home Depot v. McCreary, 306 Ga.App. 805 (2010) (hybrid review; appraise credibility and weigh evidence)
- Bankhead Enterprises v. Beavers, 267 Ga. 506 (1997) (Appellate Division may substitute findings when warranted)
- Keystone Automotive v. Hall, 292 Ga.App. 645 (2008) (findings of Appellate Division binding when supported by evidence; law review de novo)
- Jered Indus. v. Pearson, 261 Ga.App. 373 (2003) (limits on appellate weighing; avoid substituting if supported by evidence)
- Logan v. St. Joseph Hosp., 227 Ga.App. 853 (1997) (hybrid review; credibility and weight determinations)