Burdette v. Chandler Telecom, LLC
335 Ga. App. 190
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Adrian Burdette, a cell-tower technician for Chandler Telecom, fell while performing a controlled descent (rappel-like method) from a cell tower on November 5, 2012, suffering serious injuries.
- Chandler had instructed its crew to climb down towers and not to use controlled descent; the lead tower hand (Prejean) repeatedly told Burdette to climb down, but Burdette chose controlled descent.
- Prejean testified Burdette used the wrong, thinner tag line (not the required load line) and lacked some necessary controlled-descent equipment; Prejean attributed the fall to user error, not equipment failure.
- Burdette had previously lied about holding a ComTrain certification that trains technicians in controlled descent; Chandler trains technicians in controlled descent for rescue situations.
- An ALJ and then the State Board of Workers’ Compensation denied Burdette’s claim, concluding his disobedience constituted willful misconduct under OCGA § 34-9-17(a); the superior court affirmed by operation of law; Burdette appealed to this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Burdette’s use of controlled descent after being told to climb down constitutes "willful misconduct" barring benefits | Burdette: his conduct was at most a rule violation or hazardous act with obvious risk, not quasi‑criminal willful misconduct | Chandler: repeated, deliberate disobedience of supervisor’s order was willful misconduct under OCGA § 34‑9‑17(a) | Reversed — Court held evidence did not support willful misconduct; mere violation/hazardous act insufficient |
| Whether employer met burden to prove willful misconduct by preponderance of evidence | Burdette: employer failed to show he acted with wanton, reckless disregard or intent to cause injury | Chandler: supervisor warnings and missing equipment show deliberate, dangerous disobedience | Held for Burdette — employer did not prove the higher culpable mental state required |
| Whether prior controlled-descent training and its use for rescue undermines claim that such conduct is inherently likely to cause serious injury | Burdette: Chandler itself trains and uses controlled descent for rescues, so use is not per se reckless | Chandler: context and lacking equipment made descent unsafe and contrary to instruction | Held for Burdette — past training/use showed controlled descent was not inherently quasi‑criminal conduct |
| Whether venue defect (appeal filed in wrong county) deprived superior court of jurisdiction | Burdette: appeal in wrong county does not divest subject-matter jurisdiction | Chandler: superior court lacked jurisdiction under OCGA § 34‑9‑105 | Held for Burdette — Fowler precedent permits superior court jurisdiction despite wrong county filing |
Key Cases Cited
- Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Carroll, 169 Ga. 333 (Sup. Ct. Ga.) (establishing that mere rule violations or thoughtless acts are not "willful misconduct" for workers' compensation)
- Wilbro v. Mossman, 207 Ga. App. 387 (Ga. Ct. App.) (employee instructed not to climb onto unreachable shelf was not barred from recovery; violation alone not willful misconduct)
- Roy v. Norman, 261 Ga. 303 (Ga. 1991) (discussing standard that willful misconduct is a question of fact for the Board and precedential guidance on the term)
- Cannon Commc’ns, Inc. v. Cannon, 174 Ga. App. 820 (Ga. Ct. App.) (explaining that findings on willful refusal or misconduct are final if supported by evidence)