KENDRICK v. SRA TRACK, INC. Et Al.
341 Ga. App. 818
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Charles Kendrick, employed by SRA Track to repair railroad tracks, was riding his motorcycle to a motel near a job site on Jan. 13, 2013, when he was injured in an accident the evening before work began.
- After the accident, SRA’s insurer provided Kendrick a prescription card he used to pay for medications through December 2013; SRA did not pay lost-wage (income) benefits.
- Kendrick filed a workers’ compensation claim for temporary disability on Jan. 28, 2014; SRA filed a notice to controvert on Mar. 3, 2014, arguing the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment.
- An ALJ denied benefits, finding the accident was not work-related and Kendrick was not a continuous employee; the Appellate Division adopted that order and the superior court’s inaction resulted in affirmance by operation of law.
- Kendrick appealed to this Court arguing (1) SRA’s notice to controvert was time-barred under OCGA § 34-9-221(h) because the prescription card constituted “compensation,” and (2) his injury arose out of and in the course of employment or was compensable under the continuous-employment (traveling-employee) doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prescription card constitutes “compensation” under OCGA § 34-9-221(h) so that a notice to controvert must be filed within 60 days of first payment | Kendrick: the insurer’s prescription card was a payment of compensation triggering the 60-day filing requirement, so SRA’s notice was untimely and time-barred | SRA: the statute governs income (wage) benefits, not medical benefits; the prescription card is not income compensation and § 34-9-221(h) does not apply | Reversed as to this claim: prescription card is not “compensation” under § 34-9-221(h); the 60-day rule for controverting income benefits is inapplicable |
| Whether the injury arose out of and in the course of employment | Kendrick: traveling to the motel near the job site was part of or incidental to employment and thus compensable | SRA: Kendrick was off-duty, traveling the day before work began; commuting/travel to/from work generally is not compensable | Affirmed: accident occurred while off-duty before work began and did not arise out of or in the course of employment |
| Whether Kendrick was a continuous (traveling) employee at time of injury | Kendrick: required lodging/work in job area makes him a continuous employee whose travel is covered | SRA: Kendrick had returned home for the weekend and was not yet continuously employed or performing work duties when injured | Affirmed: continuous employment protection would begin only when back in the job’s general proximity and on-duty; here Kendrick was off-duty |
Key Cases Cited
- McAdoo v. MARTA, 326 Ga. App. 788 (any-evidence standard on appeal from workers’ compensation award)
- Bell v. Gilder Timber Co., 337 Ga. App. 47 (deference to state board findings when supported by any evidence)
- Jackson v. Georgia Bldg. Auth., 144 Ga. App. 275 (distinguishing income benefits from medical benefits in workers’ compensation context)
- Meredith v. Atlanta Intermodal Rail Svcs., 274 Ga. 809 (OCGA § 34-9-221 governs income benefits payment and dispute procedure)
- Cartersville Ready Mix Co. v. Hamby, 224 Ga. App. 116 (term “compensation” in § 34-9-221 refers to accrued income benefits)
- Medical Ctr. v. Hernandez, 319 Ga. App. 335 (travel-to-work collisions generally not compensable; continuous employment doctrine analysis)
- Ray Bell Constr. Co. v. King, 281 Ga. 853 (continuous/traveling employee doctrine: broader coverage where employee must lodge/work in limited area and be available day and night)