Key Takeaways:

• The Georgia Court of Appeals limited the application of the Rycroft defense, ruling an employer may waive the right to deny Workers’ Compensation benefits for a subsequent injury once they continue to employ a worker after learning of a prior undisclosed injury

• McKay underscores the importance of proactively addressing prior injuries, as failing to do so can significantly impact an employer’s ability to deny Workers’ Compensation benefits for later injuries

Unfortunately, not everything is always peachy in the Peach State. Historically, the Rycroft defense has allowed employers to deny workers’ compensation benefits when a worker makes false representations about their physical condition on a job application, and those misrepresentations are causally linked to a subsequent work injury. This defense has traditionally been a powerful tool for employers, preventing workers from securing benefits when undisclosed prior injuries contribute to later accidents.

However, the Georgia Court of Appeals made a significant shift for employers on Feb. 27 by limiting the application of the Rycroft defense in Workers’ Compensation cases. In McKay v. Inalfa Roof Systems Inc., the claimant suffered an initial on-the-job injury, which the court acknowledged fell squarely within the Rycroft defense given claimant’s false representation regarding a prior injury during the hiring process. Notably, the claimant then suffered a subsequent injury, which is the crux of this holding. In its finding of compensability, the court ruled an employer who continued to employ a worker after learning of a prior injury waived its right to deny Workers’ Compensation benefits for a subsequent injury, even if the worker had made false representations on their job application.

While a unique situation to be sure, this ruling serves as a critical reminder for employers and insurance carriers in Georgia about the importance of handling prior injury disclosures with care. By continuing to employ a worker after learning of a prior injury, an employer may inadvertently waive the right to use the Rycroft defense to deny benefits for a subsequent injury. This not only highlights the need for proactive management of injury disclosures and assessments but also may require a reevaluation of the approach to claims involving prior undisclosed injuries.

Ultimately, the McKay v. Inalfa decision marks a key development in Georgia Workers’ Compensation law, reinforcing the need for caution when retaining employees with prior undisclosed injuries. As this case demonstrates, failing to properly address prior injuries can limit an employer’s ability to deny benefits for subsequent injuries. By properly managing cases and adapting to this new stance in Georgia, employers and carriers should be able to avoid similar pitfalls.

If you have any questions about these changes or how they may impact your business, please contact:

• Dustin W. Osborne
• Damon M. Gruber
• Sean J. McKinley
• Esther F. Omoloyin
• Or another member of the firm’s Workers’ Compensation team