O.C.G.A. § 34-8-46 (2019)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Workers’ compensation benefits. - Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), the court reconsidered its prior denial of summary judgment to a corporation in an employee’s suit to recover for a workplace injury because the court’s prior holding that tort immunity under Georgia’s workers’ compensation scheme attached only if the corporation exercised the greater amount of control over the employee’s job duties than did a temporary help contracting firm was clearly erroneous; the corporation was entitled to summary judgment because the temporary help contracting firm paid workers’ compensation benefits to the employee and such benefits were the exclusive remedy pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11. Lambert v. Briggs & Stratton Corp., No. CV604-016, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3104 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 18, 2006). In a wrongful death action, the trial court properly granted the employer summary judgment because the suit was barred by the exclusive remedies provi-

sion of the Georgia Workers’ Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11, as it was undisputed that the killed worker was a temporary worker under the supervision of a staffing company and there was no evidence to demonstrate any deviation from the typical temporary staffing arrangement contemplated by O.C.G.A. § 34-8-46. Sturgess v. OA Logistics Servs., 336 Ga. App. 134, 784 S.E.2d 432 (2016). Temporary help contracting firm. - Entity qualified as a temporary help contracting firm under O.C.G.A. § 34-8-46 when the entity provided its employee to a business and the employee then worked for the business under its general supervision; thus, the business was protected by the exclusivity provisions set forth in O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11, and the employee’s recovery for workplace injuries was limited to the workers’ compensation benefits that the temporary help contracting firm paid. Lambert v. Briggs & Stratton Corp., No. CV604-016, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3104 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 18, 2006).