Rycroft defense in Georgia

1992One of the factors which must be shown to establish the Rycroft defense is that the employee “knowingly and wilfully made a false representation as to his physical condition.” (Citation omitted.) 259 Ga. at 158 .

1992One of the factors which must be shown to establish the Rycroft defense is that the employee “knowingly and wilfully made a false representation as to his physical condition.” (Citation omitted.) 259 Ga. at 158 .

2025Hicks v. Sumter Bank & Trust Co., 269 Ga. App. 524, 527 (1) ( 604 SE2d 594 ) (2004).

2025Hicks v. Sumter Bank & Trust Co., 269 Ga. App. 524, 527 (1) ( 604 SE2d 594 ) (2004).

2025The common law underpinnings of the Rycroft defense — theories of fraud and fraudulent inducement to contract — require that a party rely on the false representation to his detriment, Bimbo Builders v. Stubbs Properties, 158 Ga. App. 280, 281 (1) ( 279 SE2d 730 ) (1981), and that the reliance be justified.

2025The common law underpinnings of the Rycroft defense — theories of fraud and fraudulent inducement to contract — require that a party rely on the false representation to his detriment, Bimbo Builders v. Stubbs Properties, 158 Ga. App. 280, 281 (1) ( 279 SE2d 730 ) (1981), and that the reliance be justified.

2025See Gordon County Farm v. Cope, 212 Ga. App. 812, 813 ( 442 SE2d 896 ) (1994) (Rycroft’s causation requirement concerns the connection between the employee’s pre-existing physical condition, which was the subject of the false representation, and the injury for which the employee seeks benefits); Fort Howard Corp., 212 Ga. App. at 604 (applying Rycroft defense where an employee made a false representation on a post-hiring medical questionnaire and, had the employee answered truthfully, the employer would not have allowed the employee to begin work without further investigation).

2025See Gordon County Farm v. Cope, 212 Ga. App. 812, 813 ( 442 SE2d 896 ) (1994) (Rycroft’s causation requirement concerns the connection between the employee’s pre-existing physical condition, which was the subject of the false representation, and the injury for which the employee seeks benefits); Fort Howard Corp., 212 Ga. App. at 604 (applying Rycroft defense where an employee made a false representation on a post-hiring medical questionnaire and, had the employee answered truthfully, the employer would not have allowed the employee to begin work without further investigation).

2025See Gordon County Farm v. Cope, 212 Ga. App. 812, 813 ( 442 SE2d 896 ) (1994) (Rycroft’s causation requirement concerns the connection between the employee’s pre-existing physical condition, which was the subject of the false representation, and the injury for which the employee seeks benefits); Fort Howard Corp., 212 Ga. App. at 604 (applying Rycroft defense where an employee made a false representation on a post-hiring medical questionnaire and, had the employee answered truthfully, the employer would not have allowed the employee to begin work without further investigation).

2025See Gordon County Farm v. Cope, 212 Ga. App. 812, 813 ( 442 SE2d 896 ) (1994) (Rycroft’s causation requirement concerns the connection between the employee’s pre-existing physical condition, which was the subject of the false representation, and the injury for which the employee seeks benefits); Fort Howard Corp., 212 Ga. App. at 604 (applying Rycroft defense where an employee made a false representation on a post-hiring medical questionnaire and, had the employee answered truthfully, the employer would not have allowed the employee to begin work without further investigation).

1997See Lamay v. Roswell Independent School District, 118 N.M. 518 , 882 P.2d 559 (App.1994). [2] For example, a Rycroft defense may arise where a job applicant, who is asked whether he has the physical ability to bend over and lift armatures of a certain weight, responds with a knowing and wilful misrepresentation of his physical ability to perform the described function. [3] For a discussion of how subsequent injury funds can be coordinated with the ADA, see 2 Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation, § 59.33(g). [4] "A covered entity may make preemployment inquiries into the ability of an appl

1997See Lamay v. Roswell Independent School District, 118 N.M. 518 , 882 P.2d 559 (App.1994). [2] For example, a Rycroft defense may arise where a job applicant, who is asked whether he has the physical ability to bend over and lift armatures of a certain weight, responds with a knowing and wilful misrepresentation of his physical ability to perform the described function. [3] For a discussion of how subsequent injury funds can be coordinated with the ADA, see 2 Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation, § 59.33(g). [4] "A covered entity may make preemployment inquiries into the ability of an appl

1994As we held in Byrd’s Elec. &c. v. Johnson, 199 Ga. App. 621, 622 ( 405 SE2d 548 ) (1991), “[t]he obvious import of the third [Rycroft] factor is that there must be a causal connection between the employee’s pre-existing physical condition, regarding which the employee made the false representation, and the injury for which benefits are claimed.” (Emphasis supplied.) The facts in Rycroft support this holding, as well as our subsequent interpretations of the Rycroft defense.

1994As we held in Byrd’s Elec. &c. v. Johnson, 199 Ga. App. 621, 622 ( 405 SE2d 548 ) (1991), “[t]he obvious import of the third [Rycroft] factor is that there must be a causal connection between the employee’s pre-existing physical condition, regarding which the employee made the false representation, and the injury for which benefits are claimed.” (Emphasis supplied.) The facts in Rycroft support this holding, as well as our subsequent interpretations of the Rycroft defense.