Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority v. Thompson
326 Ga. App. 631
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Thompson was injured at work; MARTA accepted liability and paid temporary total disability (TTD) benefits.
- Treating physician released Thompson to light-duty work on April 7, 2010; MARTA served a WC-104 notice informing her TTD would convert to temporary partial disability (TPD) after 52 weeks if she did not return to unrestricted work.
- Thompson worked in MARTA’s transitional (light-duty) program from June 24, 2010, for one year; MARTA suspended TTD during that participation and later stopped allowing her to remain in the program.
- After she stopped working (unable to return to regular duty), MARTA resumed TTD, then unilaterally reduced benefits to TPD in October 2011 based on the earlier WC-104/WC-2 filings.
- ALJ, the Board’s Appellate Division, the superior court, and ultimately the Court of Appeals all concluded MARTA could not count the time Thompson actually worked with restrictions toward the 52-consecutive-week threshold in OCGA § 34-9-104(a)(2); MARTA’s unilateral reduction and timing were improper, and attorney fees were awarded to Thompson.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Thompson) | Defendant's Argument (MARTA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard of review for superior court | Superior court must review legal questions de novo and factual findings for any evidence | Superior court applied any-evidence standard for facts but should address legal issues | Court: No reversible error; presumes trial court applied correct standards and reviewed record; affirmation appropriate |
| Whether time spent actually working with restrictions counts toward the 52-week period in OCGA § 34-9-104(a)(2) | Periods when employee actually worked under restrictions cannot be counted; statute targets employees who were released but did not return to work | MARTA: may count the 52-week period of being capable of working (including periods when employee actually worked in transitional program) and reduce benefits when employee is not working after that period | Court: Affirmed Board — employer may not include periods the employee actually worked with restrictions in the 52-week calculation; statutory purpose is to incentivize return to work |
| Award of attorney fees for unreasonable conduct | MARTA acted without reasonable grounds by limiting Thompson’s continued participation in the transitional program and arbitrarily timing the reduction; fees appropriate | MARTA relied on Board Rule 104 and believed unilateral reduction was permitted; thus acted reasonably | Court: Evidence supported ALJ’s finding MARTA acted without reasonable grounds; attorney fees affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Crossmark, Inc., 298 Ga. App. 568 (discussing standard of review for Board factual findings and legal questions)
- MXenergy, Inc. v. Ga. Public Svc. Comm., 310 Ga. App. 630 (presumption that trial courts apply correct legal standards)
- City of Atlanta v. Sumlin, 258 Ga. App. 643 (agency interpretations entitled to great weight)
- Schrenko v. DeKalb County School Dist., 276 Ga. 786 (courts give great weight to agency interpretation)
- Printpack, Inc. v. Crocker, 260 Ga. App. 67 (attorney-fee awards reviewed for any supporting evidence; fees not allowed when matter is reasonably contested)