CHANDLER TELECOM, LLC v. BURDETTE
S16G0595
Ga.Feb 27, 2017Background
- Adrian Burdette, a cell-tower technician, disobeyed his employer Chandler Telecom’s explicit rule to climb down towers and instead attempted a controlled descent; he fell and suffered serious injuries.
- Burdette had lied about having third-party ComTrain certification and did not have all equipment required for controlled descent. A coworker repeatedly told him to climb down; Burdette proceeded anyway.
- The State Board of Workers’ Compensation (adopting an ALJ) found Burdette’s conduct was willful misconduct under OCGA § 34-9-17(a) and denied benefits.
- The superior court affirmed by operation of law; the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the conduct did not meet the Carroll standard for willful misconduct.
- The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to clarify the proper application of Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Carroll and whether intentional violations of employer rules can constitute willful misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Burdette) | Defendant's Argument (Chandler) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an intentional violation of employer rules can constitute willful misconduct under OCGA § 34-9-17(a) | Intentional rule violation here did not rise to Carroll’s standard; mere rule violation or obvious hazardous act is insufficient | Intentional disobedience that knowingly creates a dangerous risk can be willful misconduct barring recovery | Court: An intentional rule violation can bar compensation, but only if done with knowledge it is likely to cause serious injury or with wanton, reckless disregard of probable consequences (per Carroll) |
| Whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied Carroll to find no willful misconduct | Carroll requires a high mental state; Court of Appeals correctly found insufficient culpability | Court of Appeals misapplied Carroll by treating intentional rule violations as per se outside willful misconduct and by equating “quasi-criminal” with penal statutes | Court: Court of Appeals misapplied Carroll and erred by making factual findings; remand required for Board to make specific findings on the Carroll mental-state elements |
Key Cases Cited
- Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Carroll, 169 Ga. 333 (1929) (defines willful misconduct as intentional, deliberate action with knowledge it is likely to cause serious injury or wanton/reckless disregard)
- Wilbro v. Mossman, 207 Ga. App. 387 (1993) (Court of Appeals treated intentional instruction violations as insufficient for willful misconduct)
- Ray Bell Constr. Co. v. King, 281 Ga. 853 (2007) (appellate courts may not substitute their own factual findings for agency factfinding)
- Burdette v. Chandler Telecom, LLC, 335 Ga. App. 190 (2015) (Court of Appeals reversed the Board; Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari)
- Retention Alternatives, Ltd. v. Hayward, 285 Ga. 437 (2009) (legislature presumed to know existing state of the law when amending statutes)