The Avrett Plumbing Co. v. Marlon Castillo, 340 Ga. App. 671

Background

Castillo was an hourly plumber for Avrett, worked M–F 8 a.m.–5 p.m., occasionally overtime on weekdays; he was not paid for weekends and was not on-call when injured.
Avrett provided Castillo a hotel room in Augusta during the workweek; Avrett gratuitously permitted him to use it over weekends though it was not part of his paid compensation.
On Sunday afternoon Castillo, while off-duty and not on-call, was injured (broke his ankle) running a personal errand in Augusta.
An ALJ awarded workers’ compensation benefits, finding Castillo a "continuous employee" because he was required by employment to live away from home while working.
The Appellate Division reversed, concluding Castillo stayed in Augusta that weekend for personal transportation/financial reasons, not because employment required his presence; thus the continuous-employment doctrine did not apply.
The Superior Court reinstated the ALJ award; the Georgia Supreme Court reversed, holding the Superior Court improperly substituted its factual findings for those of the Appellate Division and that the Appellate Division’s findings were supported by evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Castillo was a "continuous employee" for weekend injury coverage	Castillo: staying in employer-provided lodging made him continuously employed, so injury arose out of employment	Avrett: Castillo stayed in Augusta for personal reasons; he was off-duty and not required to be there, so no continuous-employment coverage	Appellate Division and Supreme Court: held Castillo was not a continuous employee; benefits denied
Standard of review for Appellate Division factual findings	Castillo: Superior Court should reverse only for legal error, but facts support continuous-employment	Avrett: Superior Court must defer to Appellate Division findings if supported by any evidence	Supreme Court: Superior Court erred by substituting its own factual finding; must accept Appellate Division facts when supported by any evidence
Applicability of continuous-employment doctrine when lodging is employer-provided but use is gratuitous	Castillo: employer-provided lodging, even if used on weekends, supports continuous-employee status	Avrett: gratuitous weekend use and lack of on-call status/requirement defeat continuous-employee status	Court: gratuitous permission and personal reasons can defeat continuous-employee classification when evidence supports that conclusion
Whether appellate courts may remand for further findings versus reversing where analysis is legally incomplete	Castillo: argued broader application and remand for correct analysis (dissent)	Avrett: argued Appellate Division’s analysis sufficed and was supported by evidence	Majority: affirmed Appellate Division’s factual substitution; dissent would have vacated and remanded for further analysis

Key Cases Cited

MARTA v. Thompson, 326 Ga. App. 631 (holds standard that appellate factual findings must be affirmed when supported by evidence)
Ray Bell Constr. Co. v. King, 281 Ga. 853 (describes Georgia continuous-employment/traveling-employee doctrine)
Mayor & Aldermen of City of Savannah v. Stevens, 278 Ga. 166 (explains continuous-employment exception to the going-and-coming rule)
Sumrell, New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Sumrell, 30 Ga. App. 682 (defines "in the course of employment"—time, place, circumstances)
Syntec Indus. v. Godfrey, 269 Ga. 170 (Appellate Division may weigh evidence and substitute findings for ALJ)
Med. Ctr. v. Hernandez, 319 Ga. App. 335 (any-evidence rule prohibits superior court from substituting its factual findings for Appellate Division)
Bonus Stores v. Hensley, 309 Ga. App. 129 (ALJ findings accepted by Appellate Division if supported by preponderance of competent, credible evidence)
Boyd Bros. Transp. Co. v. Fonville, 237 Ga. App. 721 (employee arriving early at employer-provided lodging may still be continuous employee)