824 S.E.2d 698
Ga. Ct. App.2019Background
- Sheryl Daniel worked as a seamstress and parked in her employer's lot but had to walk on a public sidewalk and cross a street to reach her car.
- On July 22, 2016, Daniel left for a regularly scheduled lunch break, was free to use the time as she wished, and while walking to her car tripped on the sidewalk and was injured.
- Daniel sought temporary total disability benefits, medical payments, designation of an authorized testing physician, and attorney fees under the Workers' Compensation Act.
- An ALJ awarded benefits and fees, relying on an ingress-and-egress theory; the Board reversed, finding the injury occurred during a regularly scheduled break and thus was excluded from coverage.
- The superior court affirmed the Board; Daniel petitioned for discretionary appeal to the Court of Appeals, which granted review and affirmed the denial of benefits and of assessed attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether injury while egressing employer premises on a regularly scheduled lunch break arises out of and in the course of employment | Daniel: ingress-and-egress rule applies even during egress on a scheduled break (relying on Rockwell) | Employer/Board: scheduled-break exception excludes injuries sustained while employee is free to use break time as she chooses | Court: Held injury not compensable; ingress-and-egress rule does not extend to regularly scheduled break egress (following Frett) |
| Whether Daniel is entitled to assessed attorney fees under OCGA § 34-9-108(b) for employer’s alleged violation of OCGA § 34-9-221 | Daniel: sought fees because employer allegedly violated prompt-payment/controversion statute and she engaged counsel to enforce her rights | Employer: fees unavailable because claimant did not prevail on compensation claim | Court: Held fees not recoverable because claimant did not prevail on benefits claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Rockwell v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 248 Ga. App. 73 (Court of Appeals of Georgia) (previously extended ingress-and-egress coverage to on-premises egress during breaks; later disapproved)
- Frett v. State Farm Employee Workers' Compensation, 348 Ga. App. 30 (Court of Appeals of Georgia) (held ingress-and-egress rule does not cover injuries occurring while leaving/returning for a regularly scheduled break)
- Miles v. Brown Transport Corp., 163 Ga. App. 563 (Court of Appeals of Georgia) (articulated scheduled-break exception: injuries during regularly scheduled breaks when employee is free to do as she chooses are not compensable)
- Hill v. Omni Hotel at CNN Ctr., 268 Ga. App. 144 (Court of Appeals of Georgia) (discusses ingress-and-egress rule and standards of review for law application to undisputed facts)
- General Fire & Cas. Co. v. Bellflower, 123 Ga. App. 864 (Court of Appeals of Georgia) (defines "in the course of employment" and "arising out of the employment")
- Mayor &c. of Savannah v. Stevens, 278 Ga. 166 (Supreme Court of Georgia) (both "in the course of" and "arising out of" are independent compensability requirements)
- Freeman v. Southwire Co., 269 Ga. App. 692 (Court of Appeals of Georgia) (addresses de novo review when party asserts erroneous application of law to undisputed facts)