Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1933, § 114-403, are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Constitutionality.

- Denial of a common-law remedy to the heirs of the decedent does not violate the equal protection clause of the federal Constitution. Massey v. Thiokol Chem. Corp., 368 F. Supp. 668 (S.D. Ga. 1973).

Taking away the right to an action for loss of consortium of an injured spouse is not a deprivation of due process. Massey v. Thiokol Chem. Corp., 368 F. Supp. 668 (S.D. Ga. 1973).

Argument by a tort-feasor that foreclosure of recovery from an employer of more than five (now three) employees, based on indemnity or contribution, was a denial of equal protection, because if an employer had less than five (now three) employees such recovery would not be foreclosed, was without merit. Coleman v. GMC, 386 F. Supp. 87 (N.D. Ga. 1974).

This section, which bars an employee's action for negligence against a fellow employee, was not unconstitutional as a denial of due process or equal protection. Williams v. Byrd, 242 Ga. 80, 247 S.E.2d 874 (1978).

O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11 is not unconstitutional because it deprives an injured employee of the employee's right to sue a fellow employee. Stoker v. Wood, 161 Ga. App. 110, 289 S.E.2d 265 (1982).

Barring of a person's action for the loss of consortium against their spouse's employer was not a constitutional deprivation of the right of the person when the person's spouse had no tort claim against their employer under the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., as the married person's right was derivative of the spouse's right. Henderson v. Hercules, Inc., 253 Ga. 685, 324 S.E.2d 453 (1985).

In creating the statutory balance of rights and privileges under the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., the legislature has determined that the employer should not be entitled to subrogation. This the legislature may do absent any constitutional prohibition. K-Mart Apparel Corp. v. Temples, 260 Ga. 871, 401 S.E.2d 5 (1991).

Policy of the exclusive remedy provision of the workers' compensation law is served equally whether the employee is injured or killed, and such policy does not violate equal protection when applied to wrongful death actions. Smith v. Gortman, 261 Ga. 206, 403 S.E.2d 41 (1991).

Immunity granted employers in the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., does not violate the due process and equal protection provisions of the state and federal Constitutions. Georgia Dep't of Human Resources v. Joseph Campbell Co., 261 Ga. 822, 411 S.E.2d 871 (1992).

Limitation of benefits to dependents constitutional.

- Summary judgment was properly granted to the employer with regard to a mother's claim for benefits for the death of a child under the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., because the mother was a non-dependent heir and the Act's limitation on the recovery of non-dependent heirs under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-265(b)(1) did not violate the mother's constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. Barzey v. City of Cuthbert, 295 Ga. 641, 763 S.E.2d 447 (2014).

Because the Workers' Compensation Act's, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., differing treatment of dependent and non-dependent heirs is not irrational and serves the legitimate government purpose of workers' compensation, the Act's limitation on recovery by non-dependent heirs does not violate the due process or equal protection rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Barzey v. City of Cuthbert, 295 Ga. 641, 763 S.E.2d 447 (2014).

Purpose.

- Purpose of workers' compensation legislation was to do away with common-law rules governing actions by employees under the law of master and servant and to replace such an antique system with one that provided for the absolute liability of the employer and fixed the compensation for accidental injury or death. Massey v. Thiokol Chem. Corp., 368 F. Supp. 668 (S.D. Ga. 1973).

Double liability.

- While the literal language of this section, merely barred another action by the injured employee or the employee's representative, the section is also designed to protect the compensating employer from double liability. Scott v. Crescent Tool Co., 306 F. Supp. 884 (N.D. Ga. 1969).

Shifting of responsibility.

- The workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.) was not intended to shift common-law liability from the person responsible to the employer who is in nowise responsible. Echols v. Chattooga Mercantile Co., 74 Ga. App. 18, 38 S.E.2d 675 (1946).

Legislative intent.

- Under this section, it was clear that the legislature intended to confine an employee to the employee's remedies under the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.) for every accident in cases which the employee comes under those provisions. Blue Bell Globe Mfg. Co. v. Baird, 64 Ga. App. 347, 13 S.E.2d 105 (1941).

Jurisdiction of action for violation of fee schedule.

- State court did not have jurisdiction of action arising from an alleged violation of a fee schedule by a photocopy company which supplied copies of medical records to institutions for workers' compensation claimants. Claimants' redress was through workers' compensation remedies. Smart Professional Photocopy Corp. v. Dixon, 216 Ga. App. 825, 456 S.E.2d 233 (1995).

Action for injury arising from employment barred.

- Action for a current or future physical injury by accident due to occupational disease or otherwise (caused by ingestion of or exposure to asbestos fibers) and arising out of the scope of employment is barred by the exclusivity provisions of the workers' compensation law, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq. Johnson v. Hames Contracting, Inc., 208 Ga. App. 664, 431 S.E.2d 455 (1993).

When claim for psychological injuries is "inextricably linked" to worker's compensation claim for physical injuries or occupational disease, such as when the worker suffers trauma as a result of the worker's exposure to toxic waste, it is within the exclusivity provisions of the workers' compensation law, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq. Zaytzeff v. Safety-Kleen Corp., 222 Ga. App. 48, 473 S.E.2d 565 (1996).

Noncompensable injury may be within chapter's purview.

- That an injury is not compensable under the workers' compensation law, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., does not necessarily mean it is not within the purview of that law for purposes of its exclusivity provisions. Thus, merely because an administrative law judge concluded that a plaintiff failed to show that the plaintiff suffered an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the plaintiff's employment, or that the plaintiff suffered an occupational disease, did not provide an exception to that law's exclusive remedy provisions. Zaytzeff v. Safety-Kleen Corp., 222 Ga. App. 48, 473 S.E.2d 565 (1996).

Vicarious liability abrogated.

- O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11 expressly abrogates the vicarious liability provisions of O.C.G.A. §§ 51-2-2 and51-2-5 which would otherwise permit the parents of an employee of an independent subcontractor to bring a tort action against a general contractor/statutory employer. McCorkle v. United States, 737 F.2d 957 (11th Cir. 1984).

Who are "employers."

- The law does not grant tort immunity to owners, who are not contractors, even though they are in control of premises and are actively involved in the enterprise in which an employee was injured. Dye v. Trussway, Inc., 211 Ga. App. 139, 438 S.E.2d 194 (1993).

"Employee of same employer" construed.

- The words "employee of the same employer" do not apply when the injured employee is an employee of a subcontractor which paid compensation benefits and the alleged tortfeasor is an employee of the principal contractor. Long v. Marvin M. Black Co., 250 Ga. 621, 300 S.E.2d 150 (1983).

Liability of individual employees of general contractor.

- The liability of the general contractor for workers' compensation benefits renders it immune from suit but liable for benefits as the "statutory employer" of its subcontractor's employee. However, employees of the general contractor, sued individually, do not share in that statutory immunity. Paz v. Marvin M. Black Co., 200 Ga. App. 607, 408 S.E.2d 807, cert. denied, 200 Ga. App. 896, 408 S.E.2d 807 (1991).

Premise owner's purchase of "wrap-up" insurance to provide workers' compensation insurance coverage for all on-site contractors and subcontractors did not entitle it to immunity from a tort action by an injured employee of the general contractor. Pogue v. Oglethorpe Power Corp., 267 Ga. 332, 477 S.E.2d 107 (1996).

Section triggered by acceptance of benefits.

- The acceptance of workers' compensation benefits for a period of one year or more is such an affirmative act as to trigger the bar of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11. Mann v. Workman, 181 Ga. App. 211, 351 S.E.2d 680 (1986), aff'd, 257 Ga. 70, 354 S.E.2d 831 (1987).

Entire family group within coverage of chapter.

- There was a clear legislative intention to bring the entire family group within the purposes and coverage of the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.). Gulf States Ceramic v. Fenster, 228 Ga. 400, 185 S.E.2d 801 (1971).

Rights of children.

- The rights of children under this section were not changed by the divorce and remarriage of their parents. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Dunbar, 112 Ga. App. 102, 143 S.E.2d 663 (1965).

Benefits to outsiders.

- An outsider does not share the burdens of the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.) imposed upon an employer, and the outsider is entitled to none of its benefits. Echols v. Chattooga Mercantile Co., 74 Ga. App. 18, 38 S.E.2d 675 (1946).

This section excluded only the employee's "other rights" against the employer, and persons other than the employer were not to have the benefit of the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.). Gay v. Greene, 91 Ga. App. 78, 84 S.E.2d 847 (1954).

The express language of the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.), listing those remedies and actions excluded or prohibited, does not exclude those remedies or actions by parties not so listed and not in privity with the employee, whose right of action is not derivative of the employee's common-law cause of action. Fenster v. Gulf States Ceramic, 124 Ga. App. 102, 182 S.E.2d 905, rev'd on other grounds, 228 Ga. 400, 185 S.E.2d 801 (1971).

Applicability to malpractice claim against one providing services to claimant.

- O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11 is not a legal bar to the pursuit of a malpractice claim against a professional who has subsequently provided the professional's services to a previously injured workers' compensation claimant. Drury v. VPS Case Mgt. Servs., Inc., 200 Ga. App. 540, 408 S.E.2d 809, cert. denied, 200 Ga. App. 895, 408 S.E.2d 809 (1991).

Municipalities.

- This section applied to municipalities and employees thereof. Bartram v. City of Atlanta, 71 Ga. App. 313, 30 S.E.2d 780 (1944).

Effect of amendments.

- As to the effect of amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., on existing and terminated employment relationships, see Venable v. John P. King Mfg. Co., 174 Ga. App. 800, 331 S.E.2d 638 (1985).

Construction with former § 33-34-8. - Former § 33-34-8(a) of the Georgia Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act can be construed so as to give effect to the legislative intent without repealing any part of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 161 Ga. App. 276, 288 S.E.2d 263 (1982).

Former § 33-34-8(a) protects a plaintiff's rights under the plaintiff's own no-fault policy notwithstanding the plaintiff's receipt of workers' compensation benefits; however, when the plaintiff receives compensation benefits, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11 precludes the plaintiff's recovery of no-fault benefits from the plaintiff's employer. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 161 Ga. App. 276, 288 S.E.2d 263 (1982).

Applicability of § 34-9-9. - Former Code 1933, § 114-104 (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-9) applied solely to penalties, and did not limit or qualify former Code 1933, § 114-103 (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11) so as to provide any greater remedy to an employee. Reid v. Lummus Cotton Gin Co., 58 Ga. App. 184, 197 S.E. 904 (1938).

Conflicts with other chapters.

- The workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.) and the Employment Security Act (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-8-1 et seq.) do not conflict, as while each chapter seeks the beneficent purpose of insuring the worker from economic insecurity, they seek to remedy economic insecurity stemming from two entirely different sources. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pioda, 90 Ga. App. 593, 83 S.E.2d 627 (1954).

Applicability to corporations.

- Corporation is not an "employee" within the meaning of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11 because the term "employee" as used in that section refers only to individuals and does not protect corporations. George v. Ashland-Warren, Inc., 254 Ga. 95, 326 S.E.2d 744 (1985).

"Borrowed servant" doctrine.

- "Borrowed servant" doctrine applies when an employee leaves the control of a general master for a particular occasion. Pavuk v. Western Int'l Hotels, 160 Ga. App. 82, 286 S.E.2d 319 (1981).

When an employer directed an employee to help an independent contractor perform a task, the employee was barred by the borrowed employee doctrine from bringing a personal injury action against the independent contractor for injuries incurred while performing a task. Jarrard v. Doyle, 164 Ga. App. 339, 297 S.E.2d 301 (1982).

As to the "loaned servant" doctrine, entitling a third-party tort-feasor to tort immunity under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11, see Freeman v. Pumpco, Inc., 167 Ga. App. 312, 306 S.E.2d 385 (1983).

Because the employer had the unilateral right to discharge a temporary employee from the particular work the employee was engaged in at the time of the employee's injury, the trial court did not err in holding that the employee was a borrowed servant and that the employee's negligence action against the employer was barred. Preston v. Georgia Power Co., 227 Ga. App. 449, 489 S.E.2d 573 (1997), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 869, 119 S. Ct. 163, 142 L. Ed. 2d 134 (1998).

"Right to control" test.

- "Right to control" test is applicable for the purpose of determining whether a doctor is working for a manufacturer as an independent contractor or as an employee. Bexley v. Southwire Co., 168 Ga. App. 431, 309 S.E.2d 379 (1983), aff'd sub nom. Downey v. Bexley, 253 Ga. 125, 317 S.E.2d 523 (1984).

Application of estoppel.

- Successful continuation of the workers' compensation system requires that studied caution be exercised before the doctrine of estoppel is applied against an injured party who does nothing more than receive compensation benefits voluntarily provided by an employer. Collins v. Grafton, Inc., 263 Ga. 441, 435 S.E.2d 37 (1993).

High-Voltage Safety Act.

- Workers' compensation exclusive remedy provisions of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11 (a) bar the express indemnity provisions of the High-Voltage Safety Act, O.C.G.A. § 46-3-40(b). Georgia Power Co. v. Franco Remodeling Co., 233 Ga. App. 640, 505 S.E.2d 488 (1998).

Indemnity provision of the High-Voltage Safety Act, O.C.G.A. § 46-3-40, can be enforced without offending the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq. Georgia Power Co. v. Franco Remodeling Co., 240 Ga. App. 771, 525 S.E.2d 152 (1999), vacating Georgia Power Co. v. Franco Remodeling Co., 233 Ga. App. 640, 505 S.E.2d 488 (1998).

RICO statute does not supersede exclusivity provisions.

- A plaintiff's claim for damages stemming from the employers violation of the RICO statute was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Worker's Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., as there is nothing in the language of the RICO statute which indicates that RICO was intended to supersede the exclusivity provisions of the Act and the Act makes no statutory exception to the exclusivity remedy provision. Bryant v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 203 Ga. App. 770, 417 S.E.2d 688, cert. denied, 203 Ga. App. 905, 417 S.E.2d 688 (1992).

Accident arose in the course of employment.

- Action seeking damages for personal injury and loss of consortium filed by an employee and the employee's spouse against a co-worker was barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11(a) of the Georgia Workers' Compensation Act; although the co-worker, a deputy sheriff, was off-duty at the time of the accident giving rise to the action, the co-worker was on call and was therefore in the course of employment at the time of the accident. Stevenson v. Ray, 282 Ga. App. 652, 640 S.E.2d 340 (2006).

O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11 was not preempted by provision of federal Labor Management Relations Act creating a cause of action for the violation of provisions of a collective bargaining agreement, when the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement relied upon by the employee did not establish or create an independent legal duty or obligation on the part of the employer not already existing under Georgia law. Dugger v. Miller Brewing Co., 199 Ga. App. 850, 406 S.E.2d 484 (1991), cert. denied, 199 Ga. App. 905, 406 S.E.2d 484 (1991).

Sexual harassment.

- Employee's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress due to alleged sexual harassment by company officers and employees was not barred by the exclusive remedy provision of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11. Rogers v. Carmike Cinemas, Inc., 211 Ga. App. 427, 439 S.E.2d 663 (1994).

Cited in American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Herring, 43 Ga. App. 249, 158 S.E. 448 (1931); Berkeley Granite Corp. v. Covington, 183 Ga. 801, 190 S.E. 8 (1937); Connell v. Fisher Body Corp., 56 Ga. App. 203, 192 S.E. 484 (1937); Wall v. J.W. Starr & Sons Lumber Co., 68 Ga. App. 552, 23 S.E.2d 452 (1942); Blair v. Smith, 201 Ga. 747, 41 S.E.2d 133 (1947); Mosley v. George A. Fuller Co., 250 F.2d 686 (5th Cir. 1957); Borochoff v. Fowler, 98 Ga. App. 411, 105 S.E.2d 764 (1958); New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Freeland, 101 Ga. App. 754, 115 S.E.2d 443 (1960); New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Freeland, 216 Ga. 491, 117 S.E.2d 538 (1960); Smith v. Rich's, Inc., 104 Ga. App. 883, 123 S.E.2d 316 (1961); Southern Wire & Iron, Inc. v. Fowler, 217 Ga. 727, 124 S.E.2d 738 (1962); McCluskey v. AMOCO, 224 Ga. 253, 161 S.E.2d 271 (1968); Ledford v. J.M. Muse Corp., 119 Ga. App. 244, 166 S.E.2d 623 (1969); Mull v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 226 Ga. 462, 175 S.E.2d 552 (1970); Breitwieser v. KMS Indus., Inc., 467 F.2d 1391 (5th Cir. 1972); Yancey v. Green, 129 Ga. App. 705, 201 S.E.2d 162 (1973); Georgia Power Co. v. Diamond, 130 Ga. App. 268, 202 S.E.2d 704 (1973); Rickett v. Jones, 495 F.2d 185 (5th Cir. 1974); Security Ins. Group v. Plank, 133 Ga. App. 815, 212 S.E.2d 471 (1975); Cunningham v. Heard, 134 Ga. App. 276, 214 S.E.2d 190 (1975); Stokes v. Peyton's, Inc., 526 F.2d 372 (5th Cir. 1976); Mitchell v. Hercules Inc., 410 F. Supp. 560 (S.D. Ga. 1976); Aretz v. United States, 503 F. Supp. 260 (S.D. Ga. 1977); Chambers v. Gibson, 145 Ga. App. 27, 243 S.E.2d 309 (1978); McBroom v. Zevallos, 145 Ga. App. 375, 244 S.E.2d 19 (1978); Beam v. Fleet Transp. Co., 145 Ga. App. 726, 244 S.E.2d 582 (1978); Arthur Pew Constr. Co. v. Bryan Constr. Co., 148 Ga. App. 114, 251 S.E.2d 105 (1978); Fox v. Stanish, 150 Ga. App. 537, 258 S.E.2d 190 (1979); Haygood v. Home Transp. Co., 244 Ga. 165, 259 S.E.2d 429 (1979); White v. Excalibur Ins. Co., 599 F.2d 50 (5th Cir. 1979); Burbank v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 484 F. Supp. 693 (N.D. Ga. 1979); Harvey v. Fine Prods. Co., 156 Ga. App. 649, 275 S.E.2d 732 (1980); Beck v. Flint Constr. Co., 154 Ga. App. 490, 268 S.E.2d 739 (1980); Harris v. City of Chattanooga, 507 F. Supp. 365 (N.D. Ga. 1980); O'Kelley v. Gates, 160 Ga. App. 400, 287 S.E.2d 262 (1981); Cleckley v. Batson-Cook Co., 160 Ga. App. 831, 288 S.E.2d 573 (1982); Utz v. Powell, 160 Ga. App. 888, 288 S.E.2d 601 (1982); Long v. Marvin M. Black Co., 163 Ga. App. 633, 294 S.E.2d 641 (1982); Thorn v. Phillips, 164 Ga. App. 47, 296 S.E.2d 251 (1982); Lowe v. Chemical Sealing Corp., 535 F. Supp. 1280 (N.D. Ga. 1982); Murphy v. ARA Servs., Inc., 164 Ga. App. 859, 298 S.E.2d 528 (1982); Bryant v. Village Ctrs., Inc., 167 Ga. App. 220, 305 S.E.2d 907 (1983); Williams v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 168 Ga. App. 208, 308 S.E.2d 553 (1983); Hull v. Merck & Co., 576 F. Supp. 616 (N.D. Ga. 1984); Manning v. Georgia Power Co., 252 Ga. 404, 314 S.E.2d 432 (1984); Singleton v. Georgia Pac. Corp., 252 Ga. 557, 315 S.E.2d 876 (1984); Ponder v. Southern Tea Co., 170 Ga. App. 819, 318 S.E.2d 242 (1984); George v. Ashland-Warren, Inc., 171 Ga. App. 556, 320 S.E.2d 586 (1984); R.E. Thomas Erectors, Inc. v. Brunswick Pulp & Paper Co., 171 Ga. App. 903, 321 S.E.2d 412 (1984); Massey v. United States, 733 F.2d 760 (11th Cir. 1984); McFadden Bus. Publications, Inc. v. Guidry, 177 Ga. App. 885, 341 S.E.2d 294 (1986); Evans v. Bibb Co., 178 Ga. App. 139, 342 S.E.2d 484 (1986); Adams v. Emory Univ. Clinic, 179 Ga. App. 620, 347 S.E.2d 670 (1986); Sams v. United Food & Com. Workers Union, 835 F.2d 848 (11th Cir. 1988); National Data Corp. v. Hooper, 185 Ga. App. 866, 366 S.E.2d 189 (1988); Busener v. State, 188 Ga. App. 392, 373 S.E.2d 81 (1988); Blair v. Georgia Baptist Children's Home & Family Ministries, Inc., 189 Ga. App. 579, 377 S.E.2d 21 (1988); Labelle v. Lister, 192 Ga. App. 464, 385 S.E.2d 118 (1989); Brown v. Advantage Eng'g, Inc., 732 F. Supp. 1163 (N.D. Ga. 1990); Eaves v. Hampel, 110 Bankr. 88 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1990); Hall v. Johnson, 198 Ga. App. 495, 402 S.E.2d 98 (1991); Green v. Moreland, 200 Ga. App. 167, 407 S.E.2d 119 (1991); Sargent v. Blankmann, 202 Ga. App. 156, 413 S.E.2d 495 (1991); Maxwell v. Hospital Auth., 202 Ga. App. 92, 413 S.E.2d 205 (1992); Sykes v. Smolek Grading, Inc., 204 Ga. App. 633, 420 S.E.2d 85 (1992); Maulden v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 824 F. Supp. 212 (S.D. Ga. 1992); Braswell v. Walton, 208 Ga. App. 610, 431 S.E.2d 417 (1993); Fowler-Flemister Concrete, Inc. v. Sumner, 209 Ga. App. 312, 433 S.E.2d 329 (1993); Kennedy v. Pineland State Bank, 211 Ga. App. 375, 439 S.E.2d 106 (1993); Southern Ry. v. Hand, 216 Ga. App. 370, 454 S.E.2d 217 (1995); Pogue v. Oglethorpe Power Corp., 82 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 1996); Larraga v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 222 Ga. App. 654, 475 S.E.2d 649 (1996); Solis v. Lamb, 244 Ga. App. 8, 534 S.E.2d 582 (2000); Bayer Corp. v. Lassiter, 282 Ga. App. 346, 638 S.E.2d 812 (2006); Archer W. Contrs., Ltd. v. Estate of Estate of Pitts, 292 Ga. 219, 735 S.E.2d 772 (2012); Estate of Pitts v. City of Atlanta, 323 Ga. App. 70, 746 S.E.2d 698 (2013); Hardison v. Enter. Holdings, Inc., 331 Ga. App. 705, 771 S.E.2d 402 (2015); Padilla v. Medrano, 332 Ga. App. 393, 772 S.E.2d 836 (2015).

Statutory employer immune regardless of payment of benefits.

- Even though the principal contractor has not actually paid workers' compensation benefits, it is still a statutory employer of a subcontractor's employee under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-8 with a potential liability for workers' compensation payments, and therefore, the principal contractor still enjoys tort immunity. Long v. Marvin M. Black Co., 250 Ga. 621, 300 S.E.2d 150 (1983).

Principal contractor is the injured subcontractor's employee's "statutory employer" for workers' compensation purposes, and the statutory immunity from suit includes the statutory employer regardless of whether that statutory employer actually paid the workers' compensation benefits. Modlin v. Swift Textiles, Inc., 180 Ga. App. 726, 350 S.E.2d 273 (1986); Peavy v. McInvale, 192 Ga. App. 155, 384 S.E.2d 246 (1989).

Impact of failure to procure workers' compensation coverage and failure to file.

- In the claimant's tort claims against the employer, summary judgment was properly granted to the three insurance companies that covered the employer's automobiles because the claimant had one year after the claimant's injury to file a claim for workers' compensation benefits with the State Board of Workers' Compensation, but the claimant failed to do so; despite the employer's failure to procure workers' compensation coverage, relief under the Act was the claimant's only available remedy; and, contrary to the claimant's contention, an injured claimant would not be unfairly punished because the employer (or the employer's agent) who failed to obtain insurance would remain liable for the payment of benefits awarded by the Board. Saxon v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Company, 339 Ga. App. 495, 793 S.E.2d 659 (2016).

Tort immunity to employer providing workers' compensation benefits.

- When an employee fell from a ladder during work and sustained injuries as a result, the employer was entitled to summary judgment on the employee's tort claim as O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11(a) provided tort immunity to the employer who pursuant to a contract provided workers' compensation benefits to the injured employee. Cowart v. Crown Am. Props., 258 Ga. App. 21, 572 S.E.2d 706 (2002).

Pursuant to the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act, set forth at O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11(a), an employer was entitled to summary judgment against claims by an injured employee who had obtained benefits under the Act and then sued the employer under independent tort theories of vicarious liability on behalf of medical staff that worked for the employer, a hospital, who rendered treatment to the employee for the injuries; the exclusivity provisions barred the employee's assertion of malpractice by treating physicians against the employer as any consequences of malpractice or delay in treatment were part of the injury and were compensated as such under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-203(b). Crisp Reg'l Hosp., Inc. v. Oliver, 275 Ga. App. 578, 621 S.E.2d 554 (2005).

Court answered a certified question in the affirmative, namely, it held that O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33(c) allows the jury to assess a percentage of fault to the non-party employer of a plaintiff who sues a product manufacturer and seller for negligence in failing to warn about a product danger, even though the non-party employer has immunity under the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11. Walker v. Tensor Mach., Ltd., 298 Ga. 297, 779 S.E.2d 651 (2015).

Tort immunity of principal or general contractor.

- Having paid compensation for an injury to an employee, an employer cannot be liable again in tort. O'Steen v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 294 F. Supp. 409 (N.D. Ga. 1968).

The employee of a subcontractor may not collect workers' compensation payments from the general contractor and also maintain a tort action against the same general contractor based on the same injury for which workers' compensation payments had been made. Jackson v. J.B. Rush Constr. Co., 134 Ga. App. 445, 214 S.E.2d 710 (1975).

Collection of compensation from a statutory employer bars recovery by the plaintiff against any others, including the "principal." Haygood v. Home Transp. Co., 149 Ga. App. 229, 253 S.E.2d 805, aff'd, 244 Ga. 165, 259 S.E.2d 429 (1979).

As a statutory employer liable to pay workers' compensation benefits under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11, a principal contractor should receive the correlative benefit of tort immunity. Wright Assocs. v. Rieder, 247 Ga. 496, 277 S.E.2d 41 (1981).

Employee of an independent subcontractor may not recover in tort against the principal contractor. Wright Assocs. v. Rieder, 247 Ga. 496, 277 S.E.2d 41 (1981).

Quid pro quo for a statutory employer's potential liability is immunity from tort liability, and the fact that a statutory employer has a right to indemnification, statutory or contractual, does not strip the employer of tort immunity. Wright Assocs. v. Rieder, 247 Ga. 496, 277 S.E.2d 41 (1981).

Under O.C.G.A. §§ 34-9-8 and34-9-11, a statutory employer is immune to any action in negligence by an employee of a subcontractor or an independent contractor who has already paid the employee workers' compensation benefits. Hensel Phelps Constr. Co. v. Johnson, 161 Ga. App. 631, 295 S.E.2d 843, rev'd on other grounds, 250 Ga. 83, 295 S.E.2d 841 (1982).

When an employee of a subcontractor who fell from a ladder at the employee's place of work recovers workers' compensation benefits from the employee's immediate employer, the subcontractor; the prime contractor as a statutory employer is not liable to pay workers' compensation benefits under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-8 and the prime contractor should receive the correlated benefit of tort immunity under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11. Kitchens v. Winter Co. Bldrs., 161 Ga. App. 701, 289 S.E.2d 807 (1982).

Party enjoying tort immunity must have given some quid pro quo, such as liability for workers' compensation benefits. Cleveland Elec. Constructors, Inc. v. Craven, 167 Ga. App. 274, 306 S.E.2d 364 (1983).

Products liability claim pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11, against the general contractor in its capacity as designer and manufacturer of a new paper-making process, as opposed to its capacity as statutory employer, is not an action against a "third-party tort-feasor" which avoids the immunity provided under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11. Porter v. Beloit Corp., 194 Ga. App. 591, 391 S.E.2d 430 (1990).

Contractor two levels "up the ladder," not in contractual privity with the worker's immediate employer, was the worker's statutory employer and was entitled to statutory immunity. England v. Beers Constr. Co., 224 Ga. App. 44, 479 S.E.2d 420 (1996).

Power company that had the responsibility of contracting for the performance of maintenance work at a plant was the statutory employer of an employee of the maintenance subcontractor and, thus, was entitled to immunity from the employee's tort claims. Holton v. Georgia Power Co., 228 Ga. App. 135, 491 S.E.2d 207 (1997).

Widow of the employee of a subcontractor could not bring a wrongful death action against the general contractor that was liable to pay workers' compensation benefits as the statutory employer. Warden v. Hoar Constr. Co., 269 Ga. 715, 507 S.E.2d 428 (1998).

General contractor did not come within liability exceptions of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11(a) in an action for recovery of personal injuries sustained by a subcontractor, when it was not an employee of the same employer, it was neither an insurer nor a person who provided workers' compensation benefits under a contract with the employer, nor was it a "construction design professional"; the contractor was deemed to be a statutory employer of the subcontractor, pursuant to the definition of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1(3), when the subcontractor contracted with a principal, a plumbing company, which was the subcontracting company to the general contractor, for the subcontractor's workers' compensation coverage to be included under the company's workers' compensation coverage and the subcontractor received benefits therefrom. Reynolds v. McKenzie-Perry Homes, Inc., 261 Ga. App. 379, 582 S.E.2d 534 (2003).

In a personal injury action filed by a subcontractor's employee against the general contractor, the trial court properly concluded that the general contractor was a principal contractor that hired the subcontractor to aid it in the completion of its contract to supply wood chips to a paper company; accordingly, the general contractor was a statutory employer entitled to tort immunity in the employee's suit. Patterson v. Bristol Timber Co., 286 Ga. App. 423, 649 S.E.2d 795 (2007).

Trial court erred in ruling that an employee's tort claim against a general contractor was not barred by the exclusive-remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11(a), because the general contractor was potentially liable to the employee for workers' compensation benefits and, consequently, was immune from tort liability; pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-8(a), the general contractor was the employee's statutory employer at the time of the accident because the employee was hired by a subcontractor and was working on the construction project site at the time of the injury, and the subcontractor was hired by the general contractor to perform work as a subcontractor on the construction project. Vratsinas Constr. Co. v. Chitwood, 314 Ga. App. 357, 723 S.E.2d 740 (2012).

Independent contractors.

- Immunity afforded an employee of the same employer does not extend to independent contractors who nevertheless are deemed to be employees of a statutory employer in a tort action brought against the independent contractor by a direct employee of that statutory employer of the independent contractor. Rothrock v. Jeter, 212 Ga. App. 85, 441 S.E.2d 88 (1994).

Immunity under

§ 34-9-8(a). - Only an entity who is secondarily liable for workers' compensation benefits under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-8(a) is consequently entitled to tort immunity under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11. Yoho v. Ringier of Am., Inc., 263 Ga. 338, 434 S.E.2d 57 (1993).

Statutory employer immune.

- Undisputed facts showed that the defendant was the plaintiff's statutory employer within the meaning of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-8(a), and therefore immune from tort liability under the exclusive remedy provision of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11. Fowler-Flemister Concrete, Inc. v. Sumner, 209 Ga. App. 312, 433 S.E.2d 329 (1993).

Employer liable when renovated premises under its control.

- When, at the time of the accident, the premises being renovated were totally under the dominion and control of the employer, and the employee was engaged in the employee's regular duties when the unfortunate incident occurred, the employee's sole recourse is against the employer, through the statutorily provided means, if there is no competent evidence of record to sustain the employee's contention that the contractor was in any way negligent in the performance of its work or that had it been permitted to complete the installation of the floor finish as originally contracted for, a dangerous or defective condition would have been created. Church v. SMS Enters., 186 Ga. App. 791, 368 S.E.2d 554 (1988).

More than possession required for workers' compensation liability.

- Owner who is merely in possession or control of the premises would not be subject to workers' compensation liability as a statutory employer and would not be immune from tort liability. Southern Ry. v. Hand, 216 Ga. App. 370, 454 S.E.2d 217 (1995).

Employer as joint tortfeasor.

- This section took away from the employee any common-law right of action against the employer for injuries to the employee due to the employer's negligence, the legal effect of this being to completely eliminate the idea that the employer can be a common-law tortfeasor as to the employee; hence, there is no basis upon which the employer can be a joint tortfeasor with a third person as to an employee, when both the employer and the employee are under the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.). Williams Bros. Lumber Co. v. Meisel, 85 Ga. App. 72, 68 S.E.2d 384 (1951).

As to an employee, an employer cannot be considered as a joint tortfeasor with a third person whose negligence causes or aggravates an employee's injury. Gay v. Greene, 91 Ga. App. 78, 84 S.E.2d 847 (1954).

This section related only to contribution among "joint trespassers", that is, joint tortfeasors, and a proposed third-party defendant cannot be made liable as a joint tortfeasor when it, as an employer, has already paid workers' compensation to the plaintiffs. Central of Ga. Ry. v. Lester, 118 Ga. App. 794, 165 S.E.2d 587 (1968).

Employer cannot be considered a joint tortfeasor with a third party, even when the employer's negligence combined with that of another to produce the employee's injuries. Scott v. Crescent Tool Co., 306 F. Supp. 884 (N.D. Ga. 1969).

Joint tortfeasor's payment of workers' compensation to an employee makes the tortfeasor immune from further liability on account of the tortfeasor's negligence in causing the accident on which the negligence claim is predicated. Georgia State Tel. Co. v. Scarboro, 148 Ga. App. 390, 251 S.E.2d 309 (1978).

Employer who has been required to pay workers' compensation benefits to an injured employee cannot be considered as a joint tortfeasor whether or not the employer's negligence combined with that of a third party to produce the employee's injuries. J.R. Mabbett & Son v. Ripley, 185 Ga. App. 601, 365 S.E.2d 155 (1988).

Employer immune as a third-party defendant.

- Employer who pays workers' compensation benefits to an employee is immune from liability as a third-party defendant in the employee's tort action. Georgia Dep't of Human Resources v. Joseph Campbell Co., 261 Ga. 822, 411 S.E.2d 871 (1992).

Negligent employee of a borrowing employer is an "employee of the same employer" under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11 and, therefore, a borrowed employee cannot bring a personal injury action against a negligent employee even though the borrowing employer does not provide worker's compensation benefits. Burt v. Underwood, 258 Ga. 207, 367 S.E.2d 230 (1988).

Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to a coworker in a negligence action because the employee pointed to evidence showing there was a genuine dispute about whether the coworker was acting as an employee for the parties' employer at the time of the accident; the coworker came to a different subdivision, in a different city to shoot the coworker's new guns, an activity that the employer did not condone. Smith v. Ellis, 291 Ga. 566, 731 S.E.2d 731 (2012).

Borrowed servant rule applied.

- At the time of the plaintiff's injuries, allegedly due to the negligence of employees loaned to the plaintiff's employer, the loaned employees were under the exclusive control and direction of the plaintiff's employer; therefore, the lending employer was entitled to tort immunity. Berry v. Davis Feed & Seed, Inc., 237 Ga. App. 768, 516 S.E.2d 812 (1999).

Temporary employees.

- 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., F. Supp. 2d (S.D. Ga. Jan. 18, 2006).

Shot during course of employment.

- In a wrongful death action, the trial court properly granted the employer summary judgment because the suit was barred by the exclusive remedies provision 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).

Immunity of employees of joint venture.

- When the owner of a crane and another construction company engaged in a joint venture on a project and both the plaintiff and the operator of a crane which injured the plaintiff were employees of the joint venture, the employee, the crane owner, and the joint venture would be entitled to tort immunity, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11, irrespective of which party served as the general contractor on the project. Burgett v. Thamer Constr., Inc., 165 Ga. App. 404, 300 S.E.2d 211 (1983).

Factual issues existed precluding summary judgment.

- Trial court properly denied summary judgment to an employer in a wrongful death action because questions of fact existed as to whether the deceased employee had left work for the day or was merely on a break and whether workers' compensation was applicable following the employee being shot and killed at a convenience store associated with the employer. Dixie Roadbuilders, Inc. v. Sallet, 318 Ga. App. 228, 733 S.E.2d 511 (2012).

Company as employer and contractor immune.

- Regardless of the fact that the decedent's employer was an independent contractor and the decedent's death occurred in the performance of an independent contract, the evidence established that the defendant was both a principal contractor and the decedent's statutory employer under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-8. Thus, the defendant was entitled to tort immunity pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11. International Leadburning Co. v. Forrister, 213 Ga. App. 558, 445 S.E.2d 546 (1994).

Affirmative showing of total of employees by principal or intermediate contractor.

- Statutory employer under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-8 is by law subject to the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., and is required by law to comply with its requirements and the number of employees engaged by a statutory employer need not be affirmatively shown in order for such an employer to take advantage of tort immunity offered by the Act. Hensel Phelps Constr. Co. v. Johnson, 161 Ga. App. 631, 295 S.E.2d 843 (on motion for rehearing), rev'd on other grounds, 250 Ga. 83, 295 S.E.2d 841 (1982).

General contractor actively involved in enterprise.

- "Enterprise" theory whereby an "owner" who is not also a "contractor" may nevertheless be held liable for workers' compensation benefits and immune from tort liability is inconsistent with O.C.G.A. § 34-9-8's concept of "principal contractor". A mere owner to whom the contractual obligation of performance is owed and from whom no contractual obligation of performance is due is not a "principal contractor" under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11. Yoho v. Ringier of Am., Inc., 263 Ga. 338, 434 S.E.2d 57 (1993).

Tort immunity.

- Only an entity who is secondarily liable for workers' compensation benefits under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-8(a) is consequently entitled to tort immunity under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11. Southern Ry. v. Hand, 216 Ga. App. 370, 454 S.E.2d 217 (1995).

Georgia Supreme Court did not abandon the traditional rule of lex loci delicti for conflict of law issues in tort matters, based on an evaluation of other theories and based on the conclusion that no other conflict theory was superior to the ease, certainty, and predictability of the traditional rule; accordingly, an employee who was a Tennessee resident and who received workers' compensation benefits from a Missouri employer in that state could not file suit against the employer in Georgia, where the work accident occurred, as the exclusive remedy under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11 of the Georgia Workers' Compensation Law prevented the tort action. Dowis v. Mud Slingers, Inc., 279 Ga. 808, 621 S.E.2d 413 (2005).

In a wrongful death action, the trial court properly granted the employer summary judgment and correctly ruled that the worker's injury resulted from an accident arising out of and in the course of employment for purposes of the Georgia Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11, because it was undisputed that the employment placed the worker in a locale that unfortunately exposed the worker to being shot and it was only because of the employment that there was any contact with the shooter. Sturgess v. OA Logistics Servs., 336 Ga. App. 134, 784 S.E.2d 432 (2016).

Subcontractor's liability for injury to another subcontractor's employee.

- Subcontractor does not enjoy tort immunity from a suit by the injured employee of a different independent subcontractor. Cleveland Elec. Constructors, Inc. v. Craven, 167 Ga. App. 274, 306 S.E.2d 364 (1983).

Immunity from contribution/indemnity.

- Employer paying benefits is immune from third-party tort actions for contribution/indemnity. Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. United States, 643 F. Supp. 465 (M.D. Ga. 1986).

Once a contractor has been determined to be a statutory employer, such an employer cannot be a joint tortfeasor subject to contribution. Modlin v. Swift Textiles, Inc., 180 Ga. App. 726, 350 S.E.2d 273 (1986).

Passive tortfeasor may not bring a claim for implied indemnity against an employer who pays workers' compensation benefits, even when the employer's active negligence is primarily responsible for an employee's injuries. Georgia Dep't of Human Resources v. Joseph Campbell Co., 261 Ga. 822, 411 S.E.2d 871 (1992).

Indemnity provision of the High Voltage Safety Act (HVSA), O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., may be enforced without offending the exclusive-remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act (WCA), O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., by according indemnity actions pursuant to the HVSA the same dignity case law has given contractual indemnity provisions executed by private parties; thus, while the WCA remains an employee's sole remedy against an employer on account of a work-related injury, the HVSA authorizes a power-line company to obtain indemnification from an employer on account of the employer's failure to abide by the safety provisions in the HVSA. Flint Elec. Membership Corp. v. Ed Smith Constr. Co., 270 Ga. 464, 511 S.E.2d 160 (1999).

Contractual indemnity provision enforceable.

- Although tort liability may be barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the workers' compensation law, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., that provision does not bar enforcement of a contractual indemnity provision. Interface Group-Nevada, Inc. v. Freeman Decorating Co., 222 Ga. App. 44, 473 S.E.2d 573 (1996).

Compensation set-off from tort judgment.

- Tortfeasor, a defendant-manufacturer in a products liability action, was not entitled to have the amount of workers' compensation paid to the injured plaintiff-employee by an employer set-off from the verdict obtained against it, even though the negligence of the employer contributed to the injury. Such a result was not unconstitutional. Hudson v. Union Carbide Corp., 620 F. Supp. 558 (N.D. Ga. 1985).

Action for infliction of emotional distress and assault not barred.

- Employee's action against employer for intentional infliction of emotional distress and assault was not precluded by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq. Lightning v. Roadway Express, Inc., 60 F.3d 1551 (11th Cir. 1995).

Enforcement of judgment of State Board of Workers' Compensation

- Given the reference in Hudson to the discovery process and trial of that case, and given the grant of tort immunity for employers and co-employees in the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., the discussion in Hudson regarding uninsured coverage necessarily presumed the existence of a third-party tortfeasor, which was not present in the claimant's case; thus, the discussion in Hudson, about the enforceability of a clause that could thwart an insured's ability to recover all sums to which the insured could be legally entitled, did not apply to the claimant's case. Saxon v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Company, 339 Ga. App. 495, 793 S.E.2d 659 (2016).

In general.

- It was never the purpose of this section to place exclusive liability upon the master for injuries to the master's employees arising out of and in the course of employment, and thus to grant immunity and license to others who were responsible for such injuries. Echols v. Chattooga Mercantile Co., 74 Ga. App. 18, 38 S.E.2d 675 (1946).

Strict construction.

- Because the Georgia Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., is in derogation of common law, its provisions must be strictly construed; strictly construing the immunity provision of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11(a), in order for a third party to be immune from suit, it must have had a contract or agreement with the employer to provide workers' compensation benefits to an injured employee. Coker v. Deep S. Surplus of Ga., 258 Ga. App. 755, 574 S.E.2d 815 (2002).

Nature of compensation.

- Compensation under the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.) is similar in character to benefits under an insurance policy, and its receipt by an injured employee can afford no ground upon which a third person who negligently injures another should escape liability, either wholly or in part. Hotel Equip. Co. v. Liddell, 32 Ga. App. 590, 124 S.E. 92 (1924); Mixon v. Lovett, 122 Ga. App. 517, 177 S.E.2d 826 (1970).

Right to bring suit.

- An injured employee may maintain an action at law against a third person whose negligent conduct caused the employee's injury, and such suit will not be barred because such injury arose out of the employee's employment and the injured employee received compensation therefor under the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.). Sheffield Co. v. Phillips, 69 Ga. App. 41, 24 S.E.2d 834 (1943).

This section did not take away the right of an employee to sue a wrongdoer, but can only mean that the employee and the employer are subject to the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.) and that an employee shall have no other remedy against an employer; third persons were not concerned. Echols v. Chattooga Mercantile Co., 74 Ga. App. 18, 38 S.E.2d 675 (1946).

Employee coming within the terms of this chapter is not precluded thereby from maintaining an action against a third party joint tortfeasor who inflicted the injuries complained of. Echols v. Chattooga Mercantile Co., 74 Ga. App. 18, 38 S.E.2d 675 (1946).

This section should not be construed to abrogate the common-law right of an employee to maintain a negligence action against a defendant. Scott v. Crescent Tool Co., 296 F. Supp. 158 (N.D. Ga. 1969).

Employee who receives workers' compensation from an employer was merely barred by this section from suing the employer at common law, not from suing a negligent third party. Scott v. Crescent Tool Co., 296 F. Supp. 158 (N.D. Ga. 1969).

Injured employee may be entitled to collect workers' compensation from an employer and at the same time may maintain an action in tort against a third party who is responsible for the employee's injuries and damages. Avis Truck Rental v. Coggins, 129 Ga. App. 81, 198 S.E.2d 716 (1973).

The workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.) was not intended to allow a tortfeasor to exempt oneself from all liability by showing that the person injured received the person's injuries during the course of employment. Floyd v. McFolley, 131 Ga. App. 4, 205 S.E.2d 29 (1974).

This section was not intended to, nor did it, extinguish an employee's action against any third-party tortfeasor, but only served to bar an action against the employer and the insurance carrier. Floyd v. McFolley, 131 Ga. App. 4, 205 S.E.2d 29 (1974).

This section had as its basic purpose the preclusion of other remedies when the injured workman was entitled to recover workers' compensation, but remedies for on-the-job injuries are not so limited when the injury is the result of the negligence of a third-party tortfeasor. Tect Constr. Co. v. Frymyer, 146 Ga. App. 300, 246 S.E.2d 334 (1978).

O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11 preserves an employee's cause of action against a third-party tortfeasor. United States v. Aretz, 248 Ga. 19, 280 S.E.2d 345 (1981).

Third person as employee, loaned servant, or alter ego of employer.

- Coverage of an employee by workers' compensation does not prevent a suit against a third person as a wrongdoer causing injury, unless the third person is an employee of the employer; exceptions to this rule are cases involving a loaned servant or borrowed employee, and cases when the third party is the alter ego of the employer corporation. Clements v. Georgia Power Co., 148 Ga. App. 745, 252 S.E.2d 635 (1979).

Chief executive officer as alter ego of firm.

- When an employer learns of the defective condition in working premises not through the employer's ownership of the firm, but through the employer's active involvement in the management of the employer corporation as its chief executive officer, whatever breach of duty the employer may commit is committed solely through nonfeasance and while acting as the "alter ego" of the firm; accordingly, the employer cannot properly be labeled a third-party tortfeasor, and recovery against the employer is precluded. Vaughn v. Jernigan, 144 Ga. App. 745, 242 S.E.2d 482 (1978).

When it is shown conclusively that an executive of a corporation acts in the executive's representative capacity as the alter ego of the corporation, an employee injured in the course of employment may not recover workers' compensation benefits and then sue the executive of the corporation in tort. Stoker v. Wood, 161 Ga. App. 110, 289 S.E.2d 265 (1982).

Third party action against employer.

- O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11 does not preclude a third-party action against an employer paying workers' compensation benefits to the plaintiff on the basis of an indemnity agreement between the employer and the defendant. Seaboard C.L.R.R. v. Maverick Materials, Inc., 167 Ga. App. 160, 305 S.E.2d 810 (1983).

Common-law action against special master.

- Special master employing, as a special servant, one who was a general servant of a general master is not a third person against whom a common-law action will lie under this section. Scott v. Savannah Elec. & Power Co., 84 Ga. App. 553, 66 S.E.2d 179 (1951).

Notice of and assent to special relationship.

- For a borrowed servant to be precluded from suing a special master in tort, there must be notice and assent by the borrowed servant as to the special relationship; however, it is not necessary that the borrowed servant be on notice of and give assent to the legal consequences of the special relationship. Six Flags Over Ga., Inc. v. Hill, 247 Ga. 375, 276 S.E.2d 572, aff'd, 158 Ga. App. 658, 282 S.E.2d 224 (1981).

Receipt of workers' compensation.

- The fact that the plaintiff received compensation from an employer under the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.) and executed a final settlement receipt releasing the employer from all further liability under that law as the result of such an injury would not release another party, on whose premises the accident occurred, from liability for the injury, when such injury resulted from the other's negligence. Sheffield Co. v. Phillips, 69 Ga. App. 41, 24 S.E.2d 834 (1943).

Absence of contract with third party.

- O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11(a) of the Georgia Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., establishes that the Act is the exclusive remedy against employers for employees' injuries; the Act, however, did not provide an exclusive remedy against a third party who conducted an inspection of the employer's facilities for the employer's workers' compensation carrier in the absence of a contract or agreement with the employer to provide workers' compensation benefits to an injured employee. Coker v. Deep S. Surplus of Ga., 258 Ga. App. 755, 574 S.E.2d 815 (2002).

Employee's liability to co-employee.

- Until 1974 the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.) did not relieve an employee from liability to a fellow employee unless such employee could be considered the alter ego of the employer. Winslett v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 142 Ga. App. 653, 236 S.E.2d 898 (1977).

A fellow employee cannot be a joint tortfeasor with a third person as to a co-employee, when both are covered under the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq. Walker v. Manley, 637 F. Supp. 142 (M.D. Ga. 1986).

By virtue of the 1974 amendment, the Georgia Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., is now the exclusive remedy for injuries sustained by an employee during the course of employment resulting from the negligence of a co-worker. Dickey v. Harden, 202 Ga. App. 645, 414 S.E.2d 924 (1992).

By pursuing and settling a workers' compensation claim with the employer after the employee was injured in an automobile collision while riding in a car driven by a co-worker, the employee was brought within the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., and its exclusive remedy restriction, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11, barring the employee's negligence action against the co-worker. Ridley v. Monroe, 256 Ga. App. 686, 569 S.E.2d 561 (2002).

Trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of a co-worker and an employer as the exclusivity doctrine of the Georgia Workers' Compensation Act, specifically O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11(a), barred an employee's assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against a co-worker and the employee's negligent retention and respondeat superior claims against the employer as the claims were ancillary to a physical occurrence arising in the course of employment; the injuries were incurred when the co-worker inflicted a minor punch or poke on the employee, not an incidental contact, which showed some level of physical harm. Lewis v. Northside Hosp., Inc., 267 Ga. App. 288, 599 S.E.2d 267 (2004).

Personal injury action against employee of principal contractor.

- Employee of an independent subcontractor can maintain a personal injury action against an employee of the principal contractor (the injured employee's statutory employer) when the injured employee has received workers' compensation payments for the injury from the subcontractor. Long v. Marvin M. Black Co., 250 Ga. 621, 300 S.E.2d 150 (1983).

Employer's safety officer shares employer's statutory immunity.

- In a contract with a subcontractor, as a person who was designated as the safety officer had the duty to supervise and inspect only in the subcontractor's capacity as the employer's representative but was not a party to the contract, the subcontractor shared statutory tort immunity with the employer. Pardue v. Ruiz, 263 Ga. 146, 429 S.E.2d 912 (1993).

Affirmative act of supervisory employee causing or increasing risk of injury.

- In an action by a freelance welder against a project engineer and job superintendent for injuries suffered in an explosion, the project engineer was immune from liability when the engineer's negligence was based on a general nondelegable duty of the employer, but the job superintendent lost such immunity when the superintendent performed an affirmative act that caused or increased the risk of danger to the plaintiff. Padgett v. CH2M Hill S.E., Inc., 866 F. Supp. 560 (M.D. Ga. 1994).

O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11 precludes a defendant in a personal injury action from asserting a third-party contribution claim against a co-employee of the plaintiff. Weller v. Brown, 266 Ga. 130, 464 S.E.2d 805 (1996).

Co-employee who is a construction design professional does not lose immunity. Cotton v. Bowen, 241 Ga. App. 543, 524 S.E.2d 737 (1999).

Entitlement to tort immunity.

- A workers' compensation carrier, as the employer's alter ego, is entitled to tort immunity afforded the employer under the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.). United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Day, 136 Ga. App. 359, 221 S.E.2d 467 (1975); Gray v. Charles Beck Mach. Corp., 495 F. Supp. 250 (S.D. Ga. 1980); Fred S. James & Co. v. King, 160 Ga. App. 697, 288 S.E.2d 52 (1981).

Because an insurer was entitled to the same immunity granted to its wholly-owned subsidiary under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11(a), and an injured employee failed to create a triable issue of fact in response to the insurer's affidavit testimony in support of its summary judgment motion, the insurer was properly granted summary judgment as to the issue of its liability for the employee's injuries. Moreover, the undisputed evidence showed that the insurer would be the payor of any eligible worker's compensation benefits awarded to the employee. Coker v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 290 Ga. App. 342, 659 S.E.2d 625 (2008).

Because an insurer was entitled to the same immunity granted to the insurer's wholly-owned subsidiary under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11(a), and an injured employee failed to create a triable issue of fact in response to the insurer's affidavit testimony in support of the insurer's summary judgment motion, the insurer was properly granted summary judgment as to the issue of the insurer's liability for the employee's injuries. Moreover, the undisputed evidence showed that the insurer would be the payor of any eligible workers' compensation benefits awarded to the employee. Coker v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 290 Ga. App. 342, 659 S.E.2d 625 (2008).

Insurers other than compensation carriers.

- Insurers of an employer, other than the compensation carrier, may be subject to tort liability for negligent safety inspections. Gray v. Charles Beck Mach. Corp., 495 F. Supp. 250 (S.D. Ga. 1980).

Exception to carrier's immunity.

- Compensation insurer itself is not immunized if it occupies the relationship of insurer in any capacity other than that of compensation insurer. Gray v. Charles Beck Mach. Corp., 495 F. Supp. 250 (S.D. Ga. 1980).

A compensation insurer enjoyed the employer's immunity, but other insurers of the employer were not immunized from common-law suit as third-party tortfeasors under this section; moreover, the compensation insurer itself was not so immunized if it occupied the relationship of insurer in any capacity other than the compensation insurer. Sims v. American Cas. Co., 131 Ga. App. 461, 206 S.E.2d 121, aff'd sub nom. Providence Wash. Ins. Co. v. Sims, 232 Ga. 787, 209 S.E.2d 61 (1974).

The statutory immunity of a workers' compensation insurer applies except when the insurer issues a policy covering risks other than workers' compensation and it acts or fails to act in accordance with a duty arising out of a general liability policy. Fred S. James & Co. v. King, 160 Ga. App. 697, 288 S.E.2d 52 (1981).

Liability insurance carrier must defend.

- Liability insurance carrier of employer was obligated to defend against a tort action, even though the exclusivity of workers' compensation might have been a defense to the plaintiffs' action. Penn-America Ins. Co. v. Disabled Am. Veterans, Inc., 268 Ga. 564, 490 S.E.2d 374 (1997).

Negligent inspection pursuant to workers' compensation coverage.

- Workers' compensation carrier and its representative in inspecting machinery were the alter ego of the employer, and in this respect were entitled to the immunity afforded the employer against all other rights and remedies of an injured employee under this section. Mull v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 120 Ga. App. 791, 172 S.E.2d 147 (1969), cert. dismissed, 226 Ga. 462, 175 S.E.2d 552 (1970).

An insurer which issues a workers' compensation policy and also contracts for other types of coverages is not liable in tort for the negligent inspection of an insured's premises when done pursuant only to the workers' compensation coverage. United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Day, 136 Ga. 359, 221 S.E.2d 467 (1975).

When an insurer issues both workers' compensation and public liability insurance policies, but limits its inspections of an insured's premises to its role as a workers' compensation carrier, it is entitled, as the employer's alter ego, to the immunity afforded the employer under this section as against the tort claims of insured employees. Newton v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 148 Ga. App. 694, 252 S.E.2d 199 (1979); Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Clark, 154 Ga. App. 183, 267 S.E.2d 797 (1980).

An insurer which issues a workers' compensation policy and also contracts for other types of coverage is not liable in tort for the negligent inspection of an insured's premises when done pursuant only to the workers' compensation coverage. Gray v. Charles Beck Mach. Corp., 495 F. Supp. 250 (S.D. Ga. 1980).

Negligent safety inspections made pursuant to other policy.

- For common-law tort liability to arise under another policy of the compensation insurer, negligent safety inspections must be undertaken pursuant to that other policy; a reliance by either the employee or the employer on inspections made by an insurance company is sufficient to give rise to a cause of action in tort for negligent inspection. Gray v. Charles Beck Mach. Corp., 495 F. Supp. 250 (S.D. Ga. 1980).

Action on health and accident policy.

- An employee is not estopped or debarred by an agreement or award for compensation for an injury under the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.) from maintaining an action against an insurance company which is not the carrier of the employer's liability insurance or a party to the agreement or award or involved in any tort causing the injury, upon a health and accident policy of such company, for benefits because of such injury; neither that law nor any principle of estoppel will permit such insurance company to relieve itself from the obligations of the policy by showing that the plaintiff has received or is receiving compensation for the same injury from the plaintiff's employer or the insurance carrier through a voluntary agreement, nor does an award under that law constitute an adjudication as to the rights and remedies of the plaintiff in relationship to the defendant insurance company. Carter v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 47 Ga. App. 367, 170 S.E. 535 (1933).

Service agency.

- Service agency which is responsible for the administration of a self-insured employer's workers' compensation program is included under the umbrella of immunity provided by the workers' compensation law, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., since by contract the service agency administers and facilitates the payment of benefits by the self-insurer, and anyone who "undertakes to perform or assist in the performance" of an employer's statutory duties under that law should be immune from suit as a third party tortfeasor. Fred S. James & Co. v. King, 160 Ga. App. 697, 288 S.E.2d 52 (1981).

Trade association which provides services to self-insurers' fund and its member employers solely with regard to workers' compensation insurance is protected by the immunity under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11. Hinkley v. Building Material Merchants Ass'n, 187 Ga. App. 345, 370 S.E.2d 201 (1988).

Withholding benefits pursuant to garnishment order.

- Exclusive remedy provision did not prevent an action alleging fraud, deceit, conversion, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and/or misrepresentation arising out of the insurance carrier's cessation and withholding of the plaintiff's workers' compensation benefits pursuant to a garnishment order, since the intentional tortious conduct related to the disruption of the payment of benefits neither arose out of nor arose in the course of the employee's employment within the meaning of those phrases in the Georgia Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq. Brazier v. Travelers Ins. Co., 602 F. Supp. 541 (N.D. Ga. 1984).

Parties reimbursing companies.

- O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11, intended to provide tort immunity to workers' compensation insurers, does not apply to parties who reimburse such insurers pursuant to an indemnification agreement and who are not, therefore, insurance companies. George v. Ashland-Warren, Inc., 254 Ga. 95, 326 S.E.2d 744 (1985).

Employee's tort claim against carrier precluded.

- Employee's tort claims against employer's workers' compensation insurance carrier for alleged mishandling of benefits and documents were precluded by provisions of the workers' compensation law, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq. Stewart v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 230 Ga. App. 265, 495 S.E.2d 882 (1998).

In general.

- An award of workers' compensation benefits is not to be diminished by other sources of income. Brannon v. Georgia Bureau of Investigation, 146 Ga. App. 524, 246 S.E.2d 511 (1978).

Effect of former § 33-34-8. - Ga. L. 1974, p. 113 and 114, relating to the reduction or the elimination of benefits under the former Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 34, T. 33) when the injured person is entitled to workers' compensation benefits, protects a plaintiff employee's rights under the plaintiff's own no-fault policy, notwithstanding the plaintiff's receipt of workers' compensation benefits; but having received compensation benefits, former Code 1933, § 114-103 (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11) precluded the employee's recovery of no-fault benefits from the employer. Freeman v. Ryder Truck Lines, 244 Ga. 80, 259 S.E.2d 36 (1979); Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. v. Brown, 155 Ga. App. 767, 272 S.E.2d 755 (1980); Swafford v. Transit Cas. Co., 486 F. Supp. 175 (N.D. Ga. 1980).

Former § 33-34-8, relating to the reduction or the elimination of benefits under the former Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act, O.C.G.A. Ch. 34, T. 33, when the injured person is entitled to workers' compensation benefits, etc., did not impliedly repeal O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11. Brown v. Boston Old Colony Ins. Co., 247 Ga. 287, 275 S.E.2d 651 (1981).

Effect of amendments to former § 33-34-8. - The amendment to former § 33-34-8 adding subsections (b) and (c) has broadened the rights of the injured employee by allowing the employee to collect basic benefits under the employer's no-fault insurance in addition to, though reduced by, benefits under the workers' compensation law, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq. Atlanta Cas. Co. v. Sharpton, 158 Ga. App. 758, 282 S.E.2d 214 (1981).

State action barred upon receipt of federal benefits.

- A federal government employee who received the benefit of the federal worker's compensation laws was barred from bringing an action based upon state law against a co-employee. Lower v. Cook, 691 F. Supp. 356 (M.D. Ga. 1988).

Collection of no-fault benefits.

- Neither former Code 1933, § 14-103 nor § 56-3409b (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11 nor O.C.G.A. § 33-34-8) was intended to prohibit an injured person from collecting benefits to which the person is entitled under the injured person's own personal no-fault insurance. Atlanta Cas. Co. v. Sharpton, 158 Ga. App. 758, 282 S.E.2d 214 (1981).

Preclusion of recovery of no-fault benefits from employer.

- Former § 33-34-8 protected the plaintiff's rights under the plaintiff's own no-fault policy notwithstanding the plaintiff's receipt of workers' compensation benefits, but, if the plaintiff has received compensation benefits, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11 precludes recovery of no-fault benefits from the employer. Atlanta Cas. Co. v. Sharpton, 158 Ga. App. 758, 282 S.E.2d 214 (1981).

Dual recovery under workers' compensation and employer's no-fault plan.

- An employee may not recover both under the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.) and under the employer's "no-fault" insurance or self-insurance plan. Swafford v. Transit Cas. Co., 486 F. Supp. 175 (N.D. Ga. 1980).

Collecting under insurance policy.

- The fact that a claimant received payments under a group health and accident insurance policy for the identical injury for which the claimant now seeks workers' compensation would not estop the claimant in a claim for compensation. Georgia Marble Co. v. McBee, 90 Ga. App. 406, 83 S.E.2d 253 (1954).

When the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.) is applicable, it provided an employee an exclusive remedy against an employer; notwithstanding the broad scope of this section, however, a compensation claimant was not precluded from collecting under an insurance policy covering the claimant's life, medical expenses, disability, or loss of income. Freeman v. Ryder Truck Lines, 244 Ga. 80, 259 S.E.2d 36 (1979).

Receipt of unemployment benefits.

- The fact that the claimant has applied for and is receiving unemployment compensation under the employment security law (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 8, T. 34) alters nothing as to a finding that the claimant's incapacity resulted from injuries which arose out of and in the course of the claimant's employment, nor does the claimant's application for and receipt of unemployment benefits estop the claimant from claiming compensation under the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.) or constitute an election between inconsistent remedies. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pioda, 90 Ga. App. 593, 83 S.E.2d 627 (1954).

Disability pension.

- Contractual right to a pension because of permanent disability caused by an injury incurred in the line of duty is not such a right or remedy as is excluded by this section. City Council v. Young, 218 Ga. 346, 127 S.E.2d 904 (1962).

Workers' compensation benefits may not be denied to a claimant otherwise entitled for the reason that the claimant is receiving a disability pension from the same employer. Brannon v. Georgia Bureau of Investigation, 146 Ga. App. 524, 246 S.E.2d 511 (1978).

Settlement of damage action.

- When an employee, who received an injury for which compensation was payable under the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.), which injury was caused by a third person, filed a suit in damages against such third person, which action was settled by the parties, neither the employer nor the insurance carrier would be entitled to have the amount of compensation awarded the employee reduced, by subtracting therefrom the sum received by the employee in the settlement of the employee's damage action against the third person. American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Wigley, 50 Ga. App. 258, 177 S.E. 815 (1934) (decided under former Code 1933, § 114-403, repealed by Ga. L. 1972, p. 3).

Subrogation or setoff.

- Employer liable to pay compensation was not entitled to subrogation of a claimant's rights against a railroad company, and not entitled to have any part of the sum collected by the claimant from the railroad company in a settlement setoff against the amount of compensation awarded. Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co. v. Babb, 67 Ga. App. 161, 19 S.E.2d 550 (1942) (decided under former Code 1933, § 114-403, repealed by Ga. L. 1972, p. 3).

"Dual-capacity" theory of recovery.

- Police officer, who was injured when the officer lost control of the officer's patrol car when a motorgrader driven by an unsupervised inmate pulled in front of the officer, could not bring an action against the county to collect damages based on a dual capacity theory (that the county's duties arising out of its supervision of inmates were separate and distinct from those arising out of the employer-employee relationship), since the officer was injured as a result of a traffic incident, a risk that the officer was exposed to because of the officer's employment. Pulliam v. Richmond County Bd. of Comm'rs, 184 Ga. App. 403, 361 S.E.2d 544 (1987).

Injury during break period.

- Plaintiff was limited in recovery against an employer to that available under the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., when, although the injury occurred during the plaintiff's lunch break, the employer introduced evidence that the precise time the plaintiff took a lunch break was dictated by the current status of the workload and that the plaintiff often performed job-related duties during the plaintiff's lunch break, thereby precluding the application of an exception to workers' compensation coverage for injuries occurring during regularly scheduled breaks at a time the plaintiff is free to do as the plaintiff chooses. Miles v. Brown Transp. Corp., 163 Ga. App. 563, 294 S.E.2d 734 (1982).

Even if the employee is on a scheduled break and even if the employee is free to use the break time as the employee pleases, if the employee is in fact engaged in employment-related activities, the injury is compensable under the workers' compensation law, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq. Swanson v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 181 Ga. App. 876, 354 S.E.2d 204 (1987).

Employee, who was injured in an automobile accident while being driven back to the office by a co-employee after lunch, was barred from pursuing a common-law negligence action against the co-employee because of workers' compensation coverage, when the trial court found that the lunch was a business lunch at which recruitment needs, sources of recruitment, and recruiting strategy were discussed. Mann v. Workman, 257 Ga. 70, 354 S.E.2d 831 (1987).

Injury in parking lot.

- When the plaintiff was injured by a fellow employee on a public street while going from the plaintiff's office to a company controlled parking lot across the street, the plaintiff was injured in the course of employment and was limited to the remedies provided by the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq. Knight-Ridder Newspaper Sales, Inc. v. Desselle, 176 Ga. App. 174, 335 S.E.2d 458 (1985).

Employee was precluded by O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11 from further recovery from a fellow employee whose car collided with the employee's vehicle in a parking lot when, although the employee was finished with the employee's daily work shift, the employee was in a parking lot on the employer's premises and the accident occurred within a reasonable time for the employee's egress from the employee's workplace. Crawford v. Meyer, 195 Ga. App. 867, 395 S.E.2d 327 (1990).

Action by an employee for injuries sustained when the employee fell in the defendant employer's parking lot while on the employee's way to a scheduled lunch break was barred by the statute pursuant to the ingress and egress rule. Rockwell v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 248 Ga. App. 73, 545 S.E.2d 121 (2001).

School worker who was involved in an accident with a schoolbus on an access road owned and controlled by the school while the worker was heading home after signing out for the day was still within the scope of the worker's employment. Hence, the worker was limited under O.C.G.A § 34-9-11(a) to a workers' compensation claim and could not pursue a tort action against the bus driver. Connell v. Head, 253 Ga. App. 443, 559 S.E.2d 73 (2002).

Employer was properly granted summary judgment, in an employee's personal injury and loss of consortium suit filed against it, because the employee's accidental injury, which occurred as the employee was walking to work from an employer-owned parking facility to the employee's work building and was struck by an employer-operated vehicle, was compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act (Act), O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., under the parking lot exception; thus, the employee's exclusive remedy fell under the Act. Longuepee v. Ga. Inst. of Tech., 269 Ga. App. 884, 605 S.E.2d 455 (2004).

Injury in parking garage.

- Injuries from the plaintiff's assault and rape arose out of and in the course of plaintiff's employment when the attack occurred in a parking garage maintained by the employer for the benefit and convenience of its customers and employees. Macy's S., Inc. v. Clark, 215 Ga. App. 661, 452 S.E.2d 530 (1994).

Survivors' parent was killed while defending the parent's employer and the employer's property from third parties; under the positional risk doctrine, the parent's death arose out of employment, and therefore the survivors' exclusive remedy was under the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq. DeKalb Collision Ctr., Inc. v. Foster, 254 Ga. App. 477, 562 S.E.2d 740 (2002).

Injury in premises liability suit arising from same incident in workers' compensation claim.

- Because, on the record, there was no evidence that compensation was paid to an injured person pursuant to a board-approved settlement agreement reached by the parties in a workers' compensation claim, the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to a spa in the injured person's premises liability suit arising from the same incident on the basis that the suit was barred by the exclusive remedy provisions. Theesfeld v. Image Electrolysis & Skin Care, Inc., 274 Ga. App. 38, 619 S.E.2d 303 (2005).

Employer provided benefit causing injury.

- Action by an employee against the employee's employer and a fellow employee was barred when the employee was injured while being driven home in company provided transportation. Lee v. Sears, 223 Ga. App. 897, 479 S.E.2d 196 (1996).

Intentional delay of payments.

- Intentional delay of workers' compensation payments does not give rise to an independent cause of action against the employer or its insurer, as the penalties for such a delay are provided by O.C.G.A. § 34-9-221(e). Bright v. Nimmo, 253 Ga. 378, 320 S.E.2d 365 (1984); Dutton v. Georgia Associated Gen. Contractor Self-Insurers Trust Fund, 215 Ga. App. 607, 451 S.E.2d 504 (1994).

Injury caused by third party for personal reasons.

- Workers' compensation is not the exclusive remedy, and thus does not bar a common law tort claim, when the willful actions are directed against the employee by fellow employees for purely non-work-related personal reasons. Knight v. Gonzalez, 181 Ga. App. 468, 352 S.E.2d 646 (1987).

When the evidence of record did not establish as a matter of law the existence of any causal relationship between the plaintiff's performance of the plaintiff's duties at the supermarket and the incident which gave rise to the action, but instead it was inferred from the evidence that a co-employee attacked the plaintiff for reasons which were purely personal, within the contemplation of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1(4), it followed that the employee was not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11. Lindsey v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 186 Ga. App. 867, 368 S.E.2d 813 (1988).

Action for personal property damage.

- Because the Georgia Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., does not provide a remedy for damage to personal property, the act does not bar an action for damages to personal property, such as an employee's clothing. To hold otherwise would deny an employee of the constitutional right to due process and equal protection of the law. Superb Carpet Mills, Inc. v. Thomason, 183 Ga. App. 554, 359 S.E.2d 370 (1987).

Employee's suit for compensatory damages for the employee's pants and a boot destroyed in an industrial accident and for punitive damages against the employer for intentional creation of a dangerous condition by removing a safety device from a cardboard box folding machine was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11. To allow the employee to include a demand for punitive damages in the employee's lawsuit for property loss would enable the employee to circumvent the exclusive remedy provision of the Act. Wimbush v. Confederate Packaging, Inc., 252 Ga. App. 806, 556 S.E.2d 925 (2001).

Employee's suit for emotional distress claim barred.

- Former employee's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against the employee's former employer and former supervisor was barred by the exclusivity provision in O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11(a) because the psychic injury was ancillary to a prior physical work injury, arising only after the supervisor required the employee to perform tasks that exceeded the employee's work restrictions stemming from the physical injury. Coca-Cola Co. v. Parker, 297 Ga. App. 481, 677 S.E.2d 361 (2009), cert. denied, No. S09C1384, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 799 (Ga. 2009).

Recovery for aggravated circumstances.

- Although the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., does not bar an employee from bringing a claim for property damage against an employer, the employee may not recover additional damages for aggravated circumstances when the property damage arose out of the same incident in which the employee sustained personal injury compensable under the Act. Superb Carpet Mills, Inc. v. Thomason, 183 Ga. App. 554, 359 S.E.2d 370 (1987).

Liability of agent who fails to procure workers' compensation insurance.

- Agent who failed to perform the agent's duty to procure workers' compensation insurance for an insolvent employer cannot rely upon the exclusive remedy bar in defending a suit for an amount equal to the award assessed against the employer. Samuel v. Baitcher, 247 Ga. 71, 274 S.E.2d 327 (1981).

Right of widow to sue tortfeasor.

- The provision as to the exclusion of all other rights and remedies was applicable only to such rights or remedies as the plaintiff would have had against the employer of the plaintiff's spouse independently of the law embraced in the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.), but as to a third party tortfeasor whose negligence resulted in the death of the spouse, the plaintiff was not deprived of the right under the law to sue for and recover the full value of the spouse's life. Athens Ry. & Elec. Co. v. Kinney, 160 Ga. 1, 127 S.E. 290 (1925).

The superior court properly dismissed on demurrer (now motion to dismiss) an action instituted against an insurance company by a widow, on a contract of workers' compensation insurance, to recover for the accidental death of the widow's spouse arising out of and in the course of the spouse's employment, as if the petition showed any right against the defendant in favor of the plaintiff, the only remedy for the enforcement of such right, under the terms of the contract, was a proceeding before the Department of Industrial Relations (now the board of workers' compensation). Grice v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 187 Ga. 259, 200 S.E. 700 (1938).

Wrongful death action.

- Wrongful death action, in which it was alleged that the employer required the decedent employee and the decedent's father to operate a fuel truck although the employer knew that the vehicle's emergency brake system was faulty, was barred since the employee's death was compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq. McCormick v. Mark Heard Fuel Co., 183 Ga. App. 488, 359 S.E.2d 171 (1987).

Because a subsidiary had no ownership interest in the equipment that killed an employee, and to the extent that the subsidiary was acting in concert or in a joint enterprise with the employer/owner, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11 of the Workers' Compensation Act barred the spouse's wrongful death suit; consequently, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to the subsidiary pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-56(c). Jones v. Macon Soils, Inc., 270 Ga. App. 298, 606 S.E.2d 316 (2004).

In a wrongful death action, the appeals court reversed an order granting summary judgment to an employer, as O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11 did not bar the action, and genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether the death arose out of the scope of the decedent's employment, given that: (1) the accident that killed the decedent occurred 78 minutes before the employee came on shift; (2) the employee could not clock in earlier than 30 minutes before the shift began; and (3) the employee needed only five to ten minutes to prepare for and begin working. Champion v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp. of Del., Inc., 286 Ga. App. 334, 649 S.E.2d 329 (2007), cert. denied, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 83 (Ga. 2008).

Trial court properly granted a painting company summary judgment in a wrongful death action because the company was immune from suit pursuant to the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act (WCA), O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11(c), when the company voluntarily elected to be bound by the WCA by contracting with an employment agency; although the company conceded that it had regularly in service less than three employees, the company signed the agency's "Confirmation of Rates and Services," specifically agreeing to pay the rate for temporary employees, which included coverage for workers' compensation benefits and elected to be bound by the WCA. Sabellona v. Albert Painting, Inc., 303 Ga. App. 842, 695 S.E.2d 307 (2010).

After a worker was murdered by a co-worker at a warehouse, the trial court erred by ruling that the exclusive remedy for the worker's death was workers' compensation because there was no high-crime element to the particular workplace locale, nor was there any discernible risk of theft or robbery associated with the workplace; thus, the positional risk doctrine did not demonstrate that the worker's death arose out of employment at the warehouse. Sturgess v. OA Logistics Servs., 336 Ga. App. 134, 784 S.E.2d 432 (2016).

Claim to recover for deceased barred by exclusivity provisions.

- Claim against an employer for damages suffered as a result of the deceased employee's death was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., when the employee suffered a stroke while working the night shift for the defendant and emergency medical personnel could not reach the employee in a timely fashion because the defendant kept the premises locked during the shift. Bryant v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 203 Ga. App. 770, 417 S.E.2d 688, cert. denied, 203 Ga. App. 905, 417 S.E.2d 688 (1992).

Action for loss of consortium barred.

- Exclusiveness of the remedy under the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.) is a bar to an action by a person against their spouse's employer for the loss of consortium as a result of an injury on the job. Massey v. Thiokol Chem. Corp., 368 F. Supp. 668 (S.D. Ga. 1973).

Summary judgment was properly granted against an employee's spouse on a consortium claim in the employee's personal injury action because the employee's claim for injuries resulting from a collision between patrol cars driven by the employee and a co-worker was barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11(a) of the Georgia Workers' Compensation Act, and the spouse's consortium claim was similarly barred. Stevenson v. Ray, 282 Ga. App. 652, 640 S.E.2d 340 (2006).

Action by parents of minor employee awarded compensation.

- There is a "necessary implication" from the language of the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.) that the parents of an injured minor employee are deprived of their common-law right to recover for the loss of the minor's services when the duly constituted guardian of the minor has previously received compensation, under an award by the Department of Industrial Relations (now Board of Workers' Compensation), for injuries sustained by the minor. Griggs v. Zimmerman, 50 Ga. App. 24, 177 S.E. 86 (1934).

Wrongful death action by employee's adopted child.

- While an adopted child may sue for the full value of the life of the child's natural father, such child, as next of kin, cannot maintain an action against the father's employer when the father's death arose out of and in the course of employment and the employer and the employees are subject to the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.). New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Freeland, 101 Ga. App. 754, 115 S.E.2d 443, rev'd on other grounds, 216 Ga. 491, 117 S.E.2d 538 (1960).

Injuries not derivative of work-related claim.

- Claims of employees and their children against the employer for injuries allegedly caused to the children by exposure to hazardous chemicals at the workplace were not derivative of any work-related claim that could be asserted by the employees and were not barred by the exclusive remedy provision. Hitachi Chem. Electro-Products, Inc. v. Gurley, 219 Ga. App. 675, 466 S.E.2d 867 (1995).

Uncompensated losses up to coverage limit available.

- Trial court did not err in finding that the insurance company was liable to the worker for the worker's uncompensated losses up to the coverage limit of the worker's uninsured motorist (UM) policies because the UM statutes only permitted the exclusion of an uninsured motorist insurer's liability for damages for which the insured has been compensated. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rockefeller, 343 Ga. App. 36, 805 S.E.2d 660 (2017).

False arrest and illegal restraint.

- Action for false arrest and illegal restraint, brought by an employee against an employer, was not barred by this section. Skelton v. W.T. Grant Co., 331 F.2d 593 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 830, 85 S. Ct. 61, 13 L. Ed. 2d 39 (1964).

Estate of killed court reporter could bring suit against county sheriff.

- Trial court properly denied a sheriff's motion to dismiss the negligence suit brought against the sheriff and eight other employees of the sheriff's department arising from the death of a court reporter as the sheriff was an elected official and was not a county employee; therefore, the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11(a), did not bar the suit. Freeman v. Brandau, 292 Ga. App. 300, 664 S.E.2d 299 (2008).

Action for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

- Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendant employer in an action for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress, arising from statements made by the employer's branch manager that an employee hospitalized for chemical poisoning and other possible conditions could not have been exposed to any chemicals at employment, since the evidence showed that the alleged torts did not occur "in the course of" employment and, therefore, the action was not barred by the exclusive remedy provision. Potts v. UAP-GA, 270 Ga. 14, 506 S.E.2d 101 (1998).

Employee murdered by fellow employee.

- When employee was murdered by another employee during an armed robbery while making a night deposit at a local bank for their employer, the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., provided immunity for the employer in a tort action because the employee's death arose out of and in the course of employment. Hadsock v. J.H. Harvey Co., 212 Ga. App. 782, 442 S.E.2d 892 (1994).

Employee kidnapped from employer's parking lot while arriving for work.

- Trial court properly dismissed an employee's negligence suit against an employer arising from an incident in which the employee was kidnapped from the parking lot of the store while arriving for work and sexually assaulted as the claim arose out of employment; thus, the suit was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Georgia Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11(a). Dawson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 324 Ga. App. 604, 751 S.E.2d 426 (2013).

Remedy for sexual assault.

- When the plaintiff's assault, kidnapping, and rape by a fellow employee was clearly the result of an "accident" within the meaning of the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.), the plaintiff's remedy, if any, lay exclusively under that law, and the plaintiff could not maintain a common-law tort action against the employer. Helton v. Interstate Brands Corp., 155 Ga. App. 607, 271 S.E.2d 739 (1980).

The plaintiff's claims were not barred by the exclusivity provision of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11 when the injury, although arising in the course of employment, did not arise out of the employee's employment; the plaintiff charged the defendants with rape and sexual harassment, which could, under the circumstances, only be classified as willful acts conducted for personal reasons. Simon v. Morehouse Sch. of Medicine, 908 F. Supp. 959 (N.D. Ga. 1995).

Remedy for sexual assault of "borrowed servant."

- When a hotel employee, who was sexually assaulted during the course of employment, was a "borrowed servant", the employee may not sue the hotel in tort as well as receive workers' compensation for the incident. Pavuk v. Western Int'l Hotels, 160 Ga. App. 82, 286 S.E.2d 319 (1981).

Dismissal of action based on assault by general manager proper.

- When a common-law action brought by an employee to recover on account of injuries allegedly sustained as a result of an assault and battery committed by the defendant corporation's general manager upon the employee, in connection with the manager's criticism of the employee's work and manner of service, disclosed that the employer and the employee were subject to the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.), the court did not err in sustaining the defendant's general demurrer (now motion to dismiss) and dismissing the action. McLaughlin v. Thompson, Boland & Lee, Inc., 72 Ga. App. 564, 34 S.E.2d 562 (1945).

Injury not due to intentional tort.

- Exclusivity provision barred an employee's claim against a former employer and the employer's plant nurse alleging that the nurse prescribed pain medication without proper authorization and sent the employee back to work, thus aggravating the employee's wrist injury; the injury arose out of and in the course of the employee's employment and was not due to an intentional tort committed by one worker against another. Wall v. Phillips, 210 Ga. App. 490, 436 S.E.2d 517 (1993).

The conduct of the employer's agent, in directing the employee-plaintiff to assist management in cleaning up a toxic chemical spill without a respirator or protective clothing (other than gloves) being issued to the employee, directly related to the employer's business and did not amount to a tortious act such as to allow the employee-plaintiff to bring an independent action outside the workers' compensation law, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq. Zaytzeff v. Safety-Kleen Corp., 222 Ga. App. 48, 473 S.E.2d 565 (1996).

When the store manager's physical contact causing the plaintiff's injury arose during the manager's attempts to obtain the plaintiff's cooperation in handling a telephone complaint on the job, the plaintiff's claims for assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress were barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11. Webster v. Dodson, 240 Ga. App. 4, 522 S.E.2d 487 (1999); Heard v. Mitchell's Formal Wear, Inc., 249 Ga. App. 492, 549 S.E.2d 149 (2001).

Intentional tort claim for battery and emotional distress was barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11, as battery and emotional distress resulted from animosity which arose from reasons related to the employee's performance of work related duties. Haysman v. Food Lion, Inc., 893 F. Supp. 1092 (S.D. Ga. 1995).

Striking an employee upon dismissal.

- When a supervisor strikes an employee immediately upon firing the employee, the employee may not institute a tort action since the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., is still applicable as the aggressive acts of the supervisor are part of the res gestae of the discharge which creates an employment-related situation and constitutes an injury out of and in the course of employment. Woodward v. St. Joseph's Hosp., 160 Ga. App. 676, 288 S.E.2d 10 (1981).

Libel, slander, and intentional infliction of emotional distress were not compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., as these harms could not be considered physical injuries. Oliver v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 209 Ga. App. 703, 434 S.E.2d 500 (1993).

Owner-driver of truck leased to interstate carrier.

- Notwithstanding a contract provision to the contrary, the owner-driver of a truck leased to an interstate carrier was not an independent contractor but an employee, entitling the employee to workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained and making the carrier immune to tort liability. Garrett v. Superior Trucking Co., 162 Ga. App. 558, 290 S.E.2d 528 (1982).

Truck owner-operator driving for a motor common carrier under an equipment lease was a "statutory employee" of the carrier, notwithstanding the fact that the owner-operator paid the owner's own workers' compensation insurance premiums. Heaton v. Home Transp. Co., 659 F. Supp. 27 (N.D. Ga. 1986).

Action against owner of truck held not precluded.

- When, at the time of injury, the plaintiff was not an employee of the defendant, but may have been an employee of a person to whom the defendant's truck and servant had been hired, the plaintiff was not deprived of a common-law right to recover, as against the defendant, damages for an injury proximately caused by the defendant's negligence. Albert v. Hudson, 49 Ga. App. 636, 176 S.E. 659 (1934).

Transportation in employer's vehicle.

- Whether employee's ride home in employer's personal vehicle was a mere accommodation by a fellow employee and whether the employee's injuries thus did not arise out of and in the scope of employment were issues of fact barring summary judgment. Wade v. Georgia Diversified Indus., Inc., 240 Ga. App. 225, 522 S.E.2d 746 (1999).

Employer of truck driver delivering bricks to construction site was not a subcontractor of the general contractor such that the general contractor was the statutory employer and immune from tort liability. Mobley v. Flowers, 211 Ga. App. 761, 440 S.E.2d 473 (1994).

Injury to employee in company vehicle en route to job site.

- When claimant was being transported to an out-of state job site in a company vehicle and was injured in an accident involving a second vehicle of the company, claimant's exclusive remedy was that provided by the employer's workers' compensation coverage. Eickhorn v. Boatright, 219 Ga. App. 895, 467 S.E.2d 214 (1996).

Automobile salesmen.

- When an automobile salesman was injured while "finger-wrestling" with a supervisor, testimony that the supervisor believed that engaging in occasional horseplay with the employees to keep them "pumped up" constituted a part of the supervisor's supervisory responsibilities, created a material factual conflict, precluding summary judgment for the employer, on the issue of whether the supervisor's alleged misconduct occurred within the scope of employment. Gaylor v. Jay & Gene's Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge, Inc., 183 Ga. App. 255, 358 S.E.2d 655 (1987).

Temporary employees.

- Because the evidence showed that an employee of a temporary help contracting firm was a borrowed servant of the special employer to whom the employee was contracted out, the employee's remedy for a job-related injury was limited to workers' compensation from the special employer. Lewis v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 230 Ga. App. 201, 496 S.E.2d 280 (1998).

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., F. Supp. 2d (S.D. Ga. Jan. 18, 2006).

Status of shipper.

- Relationship between shipper and carrier did not afford a shipper the status of statutory employer for the purposes of tort immunity from action by the carrier's employee for an injury sustained while unloading a trailer upon delivery to the shipper's customer. Gramling v. Sunshine Biscuits, Inc., 162 Ga. App. 863, 292 S.E.2d 539 (1982).

Taxicab companies.

- When a taxicab driver employed by a cab company was struck and injured by a taxi operated by an agent of another taxi company and the State Board of Workers' Compensation approved a stipulated settlement in which the taxi company, on behalf of the employer, agreed to pay compensation to the driver to satisfy and extinguish all workers' compensation benefits, the second taxicab company fell within the definition of "employer" found in O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1(3) and therefore was entitled to immunity from suit by the driver granted by O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11. Rapid Cab Co. v. Colbert, 166 Ga. App. 881, 305 S.E.2d 668 (1983).

Property owner.

- Manufacturer which had a contract with an employer to repair and replace tires on the manufacturer's equipment was merely the "owner" of the property and was not the "statutory employer" of the employee dispatched to the manufacturer's plant to change a flat tire, who was injured when the new tire exploded, and, therefore, did not have immunity from tort liability. McCrimmons v. Cornell-Young Co., 171 Ga. App. 561, 320 S.E.2d 398 (1984).

Since an owner of premises on which a temporary worker assigned to the owner was injured in an on-the-job accident did not owe any contractual duty of performance to another, the owner was not a "contractor" secondarily liable for workers' compensation benefits, and thus was not entitled to tort immunity. Dye v. Trussway, Inc., 211 Ga. App. 139, 438 S.E.2d 194 (1993).

Owner of premises also contractor and statutory employer.

- Even though a construction company was the owner of land on which it was building a home, it was also acting as a general contractor for its customer, because it was building the home to the customer's specifications. Thus, under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-8, the company was the statutory employer of a subcontractor's employee and was immune from tort liability to the employee under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11, the exclusivicy provision of the Georgia Workers' Compensation Act. Creeden v. Fuentes, 296 Ga. App. 96, 673 S.E.2d 611 (2009).

Because a hotel owner was not a "principal contractor" within the meaning of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-8, an employee of a subcontractor who was injured while doing work at the hotel was not barred under O.C.G.A. §§ 34-9-8(a) and34-9-11(a) from maintaining a tort action against the owner. PHF II Buckhead LLC v. Dinku, 315 Ga. App. 76, 726 S.E.2d 569 (2012), cert. denied, No. S12C1257, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 1041 (Ga. 2012).

Statutory employer not found amongst contractors.

- Since the first company undertook no contractual obligation to perform work on the project for another, but merely hired the independent contractor to perform the project work, the first subsidiary company was not a statutory employer liable for compensation to the injured employee under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-8, and had no immunity from suit under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11. Ramcke v. Ga. Power Co., 306 Ga. App. 736, 703 S.E.2d 13 (2010), cert. denied, No. S11C0482, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 583 (Ga. 2011).

The plaintiff did not forfeit common law rights by self protection.

- In an action for injuries against a principal contractor, because the plaintiff was not a subcontractor of the defendant, the plaintiff's election to protect oneself under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-2.2 would not be treated as a forfeiture of the plaintiff's common law rights when O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11 (a) does not mandate such loss of the right to sue a third party tortfeasor and when O.C.G.A. § 34-9-8 affords the plaintiff no benefits or protection. Kaplan v. Pulte Home Corp., 245 Ga. App. 286, 537 S.E.2d 727 (2000).

Action by nurse against doctor.

- When a hospital retained and exercised control and direction over a nurse, the nurse was not a borrowed servant of a physician whom the nurse was assisting, and was not barred from suing the physician in tort even though the hospital previously paid workers' compensation benefits. Bosch v. Perry, 169 Ga. App. 28, 311 S.E.2d 481 (1983).

Doctor employed by employee's company.

- Doctor, who was employed by the same company as the plaintiffs, was not allowed to avoid liability for alleged fraud, deceit, and abuse of professional trust merely by invoking the "coemployee" doctrine of workers' compensation law since a professional person is liable for an abuse of the trust reposed in the professional by the public, provisions of the compensation act notwithstanding. Downey v. Bexley, 253 Ga. 125, 317 S.E.2d 523 (1984).

Doctors employed at on-site medical facility were co-workers.

- Trial court erred by denying an employer's motion for summary judgment in a negligence suit filed by a worker alleging a failure to diagnosis the worker's cancer on the part of the doctors employed by the employer at an on-site medical facility as the doctors were co-employees of the worker and, therefore, the tort action was barred pursuant to the exclusivity provision of the Georgia Worker's Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11(a). Rheem Mfg. v. Butts, 292 Ga. App. 523, 664 S.E.2d 878 (2008).

Intentional delay in authorizing treatment.

- No independent cause of action arises from intentional delay in authorizing treatment since penalties are available under various statutes, including O.C.G.A. §§ 34-9-18,34-9-108(b), and34-9-203(c), and benefits are allowed for injuries that are exacerbated or aggravated subsequent to the initial injury. Doss v. Food Lion, Inc., 267 Ga. 312, 477 S.E.2d 577 (1996).

Medical malpractice.

- Notwithstanding the provisions of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11, a company physician who is sued for any alleged tortious breach of conduct applicable to the physician's profession generally is not entitled to claim the defense of tort immunity, even as against a company employee; the mere existence of control by a company over a physician will not provide a physician with absolute immunity from any possible tort liability for allegedly negligent medical treatment. Davis v. Stover, 184 Ga. App. 560, 362 S.E.2d 97 (1987), aff'd, 258 Ga. 156, 366 S.E.2d 670 (1988).

Malpractice by company physicians.

- Because of the relationship between physicians and patients, company physicians cannot use the workers' compensation laws as a shield to insulate themselves from individual liability for medical malpractice claims. The workers' compensation laws were not intended to be a grant of immunity from professional malpractice actions. Davis v. Stover, 258 Ga. 156, 366 S.E.2d 670 (1988).

No exception for athletic trainers or other non-physician professionals.

- Exception to fellow-servant or co-employee immunity under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11, which thus far has been applied only when an injured employee brings a medical malpractice action against a company physician, does not apply to certified athletic trainers, and it does not automatically apply whenever a defendant co-employee is a professional who is subject to the authority of a professional licensing board. McLeod v. Blase, 290 Ga. App. 337, 659 S.E.2d 727 (2008).

Athletic trainer.

- Athlete was not entitled to bring a professional malpractice action against an athletic trainer because as a fellow servant, the trainer fell within the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11. The exception for medical malpractice actions against company physicians did not apply to athletic trainers. McLeod v. Blase, 290 Ga. App. 337, 659 S.E.2d 727 (2008).

There is no controlling authority for the premise that an employee injured as a result of medical malpractice may, consistent with the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11, bring a medical malpractice action against a certified athletic trainer. McLeod v. Blase, 290 Ga. App. 337, 659 S.E.2d 727 (2008).

Common-law action for disfiguring burns.

- The workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.) does not provide for workers' compensation for a nondisability-producing disfigurement, nor could a common-law action by a young child against their employer for burns to the child's neck and chest caused by the firing of a loaded gun in a staged entertainment, which resulted in no physical or economic disability, be maintained. Nowell v. Stone Mt. Scenic R.R., 150 Ga. App. 325, 257 S.E.2d 344 (1979).

Employee of contractor working for power company.

- When a power company, through its project superintendent, had the right to control the time, manner, and method of executing work, a contract between the power company and the contractor created a master-servant relationship, and the employee of the contractor, which was itself a servant of the power company, was, under the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.), an employee of the power company whose exclusive remedy was before the board of workers' compensation. Blackwell v. Taylor, 497 F. Supp. 351 (M.D. Ga. 1980).

Professional malpractice exemption to co-employee immunity.

- Supervising officer in sheriff's department did not owe any unique duty of trust to subordinate officer and, thus, professional malpractice exemption to co-employee immunity under the exclusive remedy provisions of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11 did not apply and the supervisor's estate was immune to tort claim. Clark v. Williamson, 206 Ga. App. 8, 425 S.E.2d 311 (1992).

Exclusivity of remedy.

- When an employee has accepted the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.), the employee's rights against an employer to recover on account of any injuries sustained by reason of the employer's breach of any duty to an employee arising out of the relationship between them are determinable solely under that law, and are not determinable at common law, notwithstanding the fact that the injuries complained of did not result from an accident, and therefore the employee could not recover compensation therefor. Stebbins v. Georgia Veneer & Package Co., 51 Ga. App. 56, 179 S.E. 649 (1935).

The workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.) covers the entire subject matter of claims for injuries by employees against employers, and the remedy given by the law is in lieu of any remedy formerly afforded by an action at common law. Patterson v. Curtis Publishing Co., 58 Ga. App. 211, 198 S.E. 102 (1938); Nowell v. Stone Mt. Scenic R.R., 150 Ga. App. 325, 257 S.E.2d 344 (1979).

The rights of an employee under the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.) are exclusive only as against the employer. Mull v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 226 Ga. 462, 175 S.E.2d 552 (1970).

When workers' compensation law is applicable, it provides an employee an exclusive remedy against an employer. Swafford v. Transit Cas. Co., 486 F. Supp. 175 (N.D. Ga. 1980).

The existence of workers' compensation coverage excludes all other remedies against the employer. United States v. Aretz, 248 Ga. 19, 280 S.E.2d 345 (1981).

O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11 has been interpreted consistently to mean that, when the workers' compensation law is applicable, it provides the employee's exclusive remedy against an employer. Atlanta Cas. Co. v. Sharpton, 158 Ga. App. 758, 282 S.E.2d 214 (1981).

O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11 bars a suit by a covered employee against an employer and against fellow employees. Boatman v. George Hyman Constr. Co., 157 Ga. App. 120, 276 S.E.2d 272 (1981); Fountain v. Shoney's Big Boy, Inc., 168 Ga. App. 489, 309 S.E.2d 671 (1983).

A suit against an employer for negligence in causing an employee's on-the-job injury is precluded by O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11, which makes recovery under the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., the employee's exclusive remedy in such a situation. Kelly v. China One Restaurant, Inc., 161 Ga. App. 600, 289 S.E.2d 28 (1982).

When an injury arises out of and in the course of employment, the employee's sole remedy is against the employer, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11. Labelle v. Lister, 192 Ga. App. 464, 385 S.E.2d 118 (1989).

When former employees sued their employer in tort for their development of cancer allegedly as the result of exposure in their place of employment to chemicals, the trial court properly dismissed their complaint; a claim under the workers' compensation law, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., is the employees' sole and exclusive remedy for injury or occupational disease incurred in the course of employment. Ervin v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 195 Ga. App. 317, 393 S.E.2d 467 (1990).

Because the animosity between claimant and claimant's employer arose from reasons related to performance of claimant's work, the injuries the claimant received from the alleged battery, when the claimant was being removed from work by police were compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.; claimant's tort claim for battery was therefore barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Act. Baldwin v. Roberts, 212 Ga. App. 546, 446 S.E.2d 272 (1994).

Worker's compensation was the exclusive remedy for an employee's emotional injuries arising from a robbery at the store where the employee worked, and the employer was not estopped from asserting that the exclusivity provision barred the employee's negligence action. Boulware v. Quiktrip Corp., 226 Ga. App. 399, 486 S.E.2d 662 (1997).

Trial court properly granted a co-worker's summary judgment motion as to an employee's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim as: (1) there was no evidence that the co-worker had any degree of control over the employee or that the co-worker believed the employee to be especially vulnerable to a shove; (2) the severity of harm to the employee was small; and (3) the co-worker's conduct did not rise to the level of outrageous behavior required to support an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Lewis v. Northside Hosp., Inc., 267 Ga. App. 288, 599 S.E.2d 267 (2004).

Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the landscaper and the business entity on their claim that the estate administrator's wrongful death lawsuit was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11(a); a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the decedent was an employee of the landscaper and the business entity at the time of death as the landscaper was more of a de facto guardian in relationship to the decedent, but the landscaper also had some measure of control over the decedent because the decedent was assisting the landscaper on a project even though the decedent had never before worked for the landscaper and the business. Glover v. Ware, 276 Ga. App. 759, 624 S.E.2d 285 (2005).

Trial court did not err in determining that a deceased Georgia superior court judge was a State of Georgia employee but not a county employee for purposes of the exclusive remedy provision under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11(a) of the Georgia Workers' Compensation Act in a claim by the judge's widow against county sheriffs, arising from the murder of the judge while in a courtroom, as the judge was vested with the judicial power of the State of Georgia under Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. I, Para. I and was defined as a "state official" pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 45-7-4(a)(20) for compensation purposes; the fact that the county asserted that the widow could obtain workers' compensation benefits and that it offered to the widow the judge's funeral expenses, both of which sums the widow refused, or that it contributed a supplemental amount to the judge's salary, did not make the judge a county employee. Freeman v. Barnes, 282 Ga. App. 895, 640 S.E.2d 611 (2006).

Trial court's determination that a county sheriff was not also a State of Georgia employee for workers' compensation purposes under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11(a), the exclusive remedy provision, was proper, as sheriffs were only authorized to act within their county, they were defined as county officers under Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. I, Para. III, and sheriffs' salaries were subject to change. Freeman v. Barnes, 282 Ga. App. 895, 640 S.E.2d 611 (2006).

In a wrongful death action, the trial court erred in denying an employer's motion for summary judgment against the claims filed by the decedent's parents, as those claims were limited by the exclusivity provisions of the Georgia Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., given evidence that the decedent's death arose out of and in the course of employment pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1(4). Burns Int'l Sec. Servs. Corp. v. Johnson, 284 Ga. App. 289, 643 S.E.2d 800 (2007).

Trial court did not err in dismissing a sheriff's deputy's widow's claims against the sheriff and the deputy's fellow deputies on the basis that the Workers' Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11(a). The sheriff was the deputy's "employer" under Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. I, Para. III(a), and O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1(3). Teasley v. Freeman, 305 Ga. App. 1, 699 S.E.2d 39 (2010).

Agreement to accept exclusive remedy of workers' compensation.

- When surviving spouse accepted death benefits under workers' compensation laws, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., the surviving spouse was estopped by the exclusive remedy provisions of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11 from recovering in a tort action based on a claim that willful misconduct of an employee fell outside the scope of the employee's employment. Clark v. Williamson, 206 Ga. App. 8, 425 S.E.2d 311 (1992).

There are no exceptions to unambiguous and exclusive rights and remedies provisions of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11 so as to enable an injured employee to obtain a judgment against a co-employee in order to meet any statutory or contractual conditions necessary to the ultimate recovery of insurance benefits from the employee's own insurer. Williams v. Thomas, 187 Ga. App. 527, 370 S.E.2d 773, cert. denied, 187 Ga. App. 909, 370 S.E.2d 773 (1988).

Common-law actions prohibited.

- If an injury is compensable under the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.), and both an employer and an employee are subject thereto, a common-law action on account of such injury is not maintainable by the employee against the employer. Blue Bell Globe Mfg. Co. v. Baird, 61 Ga. App. 298, 6 S.E.2d 83 (1939), later appeal, 64 Ga. App. 347, 13 S.E.2d 105 (1941).

If an employee has accepted the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.), the employee's rights against an employer to recover on account of injuries sustained by reason of the breach of any duty arising out of the employment relationship are determinable solely under that law, and are not determinable at common law. McLaughlin v. Thompson, Boland & Lee, Inc., 72 Ga. App. 564, 34 S.E.2d 562 (1945); Smith v. White Lift of Dalton, Inc., 145 Ga. App. 596, 244 S.E.2d 117 (1978); Samuel v. Baitcher, 154 Ga. App. 602, 269 S.E.2d 96 (1980); Gray v. Charles Beck Mach. Corp., 495 F. Supp. 250 (S.D. Ga. 1980).

This section took away from the employee any common-law right that the employee might have had to recover from an employer for an injury caused by the negligence of the employer. Williams Bros. Lumber Co. v. Meisel, 85 Ga. App. 72, 68 S.E.2d 384 (1951).

If an injury is compensable under the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.), and both the employer and employee are subject thereto and have not rejected the law's provisions, a common-law action on account of such injury is not maintainable by the employee against an employer, either general or special. Forrester v. Scott, 125 Ga. App. 245, 187 S.E.2d 323 (1972); United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Forrester, 230 Ga. 182, 196 S.E.2d 133 (1973).

An employee cannot maintain a common-law action against an employer when both are subject to the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.). Massey v. Thiokol Chem. Corp., 368 F. Supp. 668 (S.D. Ga. 1973).

An employee's sole remedy as against an employer, for failure to furnish a safe place in which to work, is under the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.), regardless of the cause for such failure. Sands v. Union Camp Corp., 559 F.2d 1345 (5th Cir. 1977).

Under this section, the rights and remedies granted to employees under the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.) excluded all other rights and remedies of the employee at common law or otherwise, on account of such injury, other than an employee's right to bring an action against a third party tortfeasor, the purpose of this provision being to preclude common-law remedies when a workman was entitled to recover workers' compensation. Blackwell v. Taylor, 497 F. Supp. 351 (M.D. Ga. 1980).

O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11 provides, in effect, that the rights granted to an employee to recover workers' compensation benefits from an employer exclude all common-law rights of the employee to recover against an employer and certain others. Wright Assocs. v. Rieder, 247 Ga. 496, 277 S.E.2d 41 (1981).

O.C.G.A. § 34-9-108(b)(1) provided a penalty for an insurer's controverting medical payments without reasonable grounds and, therefore, the employee's use of the common-law remedy for breach of contract (i.e., a settlement agreement) was excluded. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Davis, 253 Ga. 376, 320 S.E.2d 368 (1984).

Common-law indemnity.

- Workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.) has removed completely an employer's tort liability for an employee's injuries, and no action may be maintained under common-law indemnity or contribution. Coleman v. GMC, 386 F. Supp. 87 (N.D. Ga. 1974).

Purpose of exclusivity.

- The concept of exclusiveness of remedy is a rational mechanism for making the workers' compensation system work in accord with the purpose of the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.). Massey v. Thiokol Chem. Corp., 368 F. Supp. 668 (S.D. Ga. 1973).

In exchange for the right to recover scheduled compensation without proof of negligence on the part of the employer in those cases in which a right of recovery is granted, an employee forgoes other rights and remedies which the employee might have had, but if the employee accepts the terms of the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.) the employee, as well as the employer, is limited to those things for which the law makes provision. Nowell v. Stone Mt. Scenic R.R., 150 Ga. App. 325, 257 S.E.2d 344 (1979).

Employee and representatives barred.

- Rights and remedies granted under the workers' compensation law, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., to an employee exclude all other rights and remedies of such an employee, the employee's personal representative, parents, dependents or next-of-kin, or otherwise, on account of such injury, loss of service, or death, other than an employee's right to bring an action against a third-party tortfeasor. Haygood v. Home Transp. Co., 149 Ga. App. 229, 253 S.E.2d 805, aff'd, 244 Ga. 165, 259 S.E.2d 429 (1979).

Exclusivity applied to wrongful death action filed by parent.

- When a city loaned one of its police officers to another city but, by contract continued to provide the officer's wages, benefits and workers' compensation, the lending city was the officer's employer, and a wrongful death action filed by the officer's mother was barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11. Adams v. Collins, 195 Ga. App. 36, 392 S.E.2d 549 (1990).

Action permitted if not barred by workers' compensation law.

- Remedy provided by the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.) is exclusive within the field of its operation, but does not exclude redress in cases to which it is not applicable. Covington v. Berkeley Granite Corp., 182 Ga. 235, 184 S.E. 871, answer conformed to, 53 Ga. App. 269, 185 S.E. 386 (1936), aff'd, 183 Ga. 801, 190 S.E. 8 (1937).

The right to bring an ordinary action for damages was not excluded by this section as to injuries which did not fall within its terms. Covington v. Berkeley Granite Corp., 182 Ga. 235, 184 S.E. 871, answer conformed to, 53 Ga. App. 269, 185 S.E. 386 (1936), aff'd, 183 Ga. 801, 190 S.E. 8 (1937).

The workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.) cannot be construed as being designed to deprive an employee of any common-law action which the employee might otherwise have against an employer, unless the action which the employee seeks to assert is one for an injury as to which relief has actually been granted under the law. Skelton v. W.T. Grant Co., 331 F.2d 593 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 830, 85 S. Ct. 61, 13 L. Ed. 2d 39 (1964).

When it is not alleged, and there is nothing in the record to establish the fact, that an employer's alleged illegal conduct amounted to an "accident arising out of and in the course of employment", an action by an employee against an employer is not barred by anything provided for in the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.). Skelton v. W.T. Grant Co., 331 F.2d 593 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 830, 85 S. Ct. 61, 13 L. Ed. 2d 39 (1964).

Independent right of action for employee injured out of state.

- Under the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., an employee has no independent right of action for an injury against an employer or any other person who is statutorily insulated from suit, even when the employee is injured outside of the state and benefits for that injury are recoverable pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 34-9-242. Karimi v. Crowley, 172 Ga. App. 761, 324 S.E.2d 583 (1984).

Agreement to accept exclusive remedy of workers' compensation.

- The decedent who acted as an independent contractor in relationship to an employer was entitled to coverage under the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.) by an agreement whereby the employer accepted deductions from the contractor's pay and applied them to the employer's workers' compensation insurance policy in order for the contractor to obtain coverage under the employer's policy. Lott v. Ace Post Co., 175 Ga. App. 196, 332 S.E.2d 676 (1985).

The decedent/independent contractor who agreed with the employer to be covered by the workers' compensation law, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., was limited to exclusive coverage under this law and could not (by the decedent's survivors) claim a lack of reciprocal estoppel, as the employer's quid pro quo was its surrender under the agreement of any defense of a lack of negligence in regard to a compensable injury to the decedent. Lott v. Ace Post Co., 175 Ga. App. 196, 332 S.E.2d 676 (1985).

No exception for violating safety standards.

- O.C.G.A. § 46-3-30 et seq., imposing certain safety standards, not only upon employers of workers performing certain acts in proximity to hazardous high-voltage lines, is not an exception to the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq. Pappas v. Hill-Staton Eng'rs, Inc., 183 Ga. App. 258, 358 S.E.2d 625, cert. denied, 183 Ga. App. 906, 358 S.E.2d 625 (1987); City of Dalton v. Gene Rogers Constr. Co., 223 Ga. App. 819, 479 S.E.2d 171 (1996); Flint Elec. Membership Corp. v. Ed Smith Constr. Co., 229 Ga. App. 838, 495 S.E.2d 136 (1998).

No separate action for concealed work hazards.

- Employee could not bring a separate action against an employer independent of the exclusivity provisions of the workers' compensation law, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq., on the ground that the employer concealed work place hazards in violation of O.C.G.A. § 34-7-20, since this law makes no statutory exception to the exclusive remedy provisions. Dugger v. Miller Brewing Co., 199 Ga. App. 850, 406 S.E.2d 484 (1991), cert. denied, 199 Ga. App. 905, 406 S.E.2d 484 (1991).

Restricted application of equitable estoppel.

- The successful continuation of the workers' compensation system requires that studied caution be exercised before the doctrine of estoppel is applied against an injured party bringing a personal injury action who does nothing more than receive compensation benefits voluntarily provided by an employer. Collins v. Grafton, Inc., 263 Ga. 441, 435 S.E.2d 37 (1993).

Exclusive jurisdiction of board.

- When the injuries which a plaintiff sustains are clearly the result of an "accident" within the terms of the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.), the plaintiff's remedy against an employer is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the state board of workers' compensation and not in the superior court. Echols v. Chattooga Mercantile Co., 74 Ga. App. 18, 38 S.E.2d 675 (1946).

Proof of coverage required to bar negligence action.

- Defendant may assert coverage under the workers' compensation law (see now O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq.) as a bar to a common-law negligence action against the defendant arising out of the same occurrence, whether or not a claim for compensation has been made, but in order to sustain such assertion one must plead and prove coverage; an award of compensation would be an adjudication of coverage and consequently a bar to a common-law action, but an award of no compensation because of no coverage would be an adjudication of no coverage and a common-law action could proceed. Bishop v. Weems, 118 Ga. App. 180, 162 S.E.2d 879 (1968).

When immunity defense to be raised.

- O.C.G.A. § 9-11-8(c) does not require that the statutory employer's defense under O.C.G.A. §§ 34-9-8 and34-9-11 be affirmatively raised in the defendant's answer. Wright Assocs. v. Rieder, 247 Ga. 496, 277 S.E.2d 41 (1981).

Conflict of laws.

- For a case dealing with one jurisdiction's ability to make a supplemental workers' compensation award subsequent to an award by another jurisdiction, despite the fact that the latter has an exclusivity of remedies provision, see Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co., 448 U.S. 261, 100 S. Ct. 2647, 65 L. Ed. 2d 757 (1980).

Claim of statutory immunity.

- Claim of statutory immunity under Georgia's workers' compensation scheme is an affirmative defense and subject to waiver under Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Civ. P., in federal diversity of citizenship actions. Troxler v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 717 F.2d 530 (11th Cir. 1983).

No-fault insurance benefits.

- For a discussion of the correlation of no-fault insurance benefits with workers' compensation benefits for employees injured while operating an employer's motor vehicle, see 1980 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 80-61.

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 82 Am. Jur. 2d, Workers' Compensation, §§ 9, 54, et seq., 188, 383.

C.J.S.

- 101 C.J.S., Workers' Compensation, § 1721 et seq.

ALR.

- Workmen's compensation: rights and remedies where employee was injured by third person's negligence, 19 A.L.R. 766; 27 A.L.R. 493; 37 A.L.R. 838; 67 A.L.R. 249; 88 A.L.R. 665; 106 A.L.R. 1040.

Insurance under Workmen's Compensation Act as coextensive with the insured's liability under act, 45 A.L.R. 1329; 108 A.L.R. 812.

Application for an acceptance of benefits under Workmen's Compensation Act as affecting right of action against employer independently of that act, 50 A.L.R. 223.

Admissibility and effect of finding or order on claim under Workmen's Compensation Act for personal injury, in proceedings on claim for compensation for death, 88 A.L.R. 1179.

Voluntary payment or other relief by insurance carrier under Workmen's Compensation Act as estoppel to deny issuance of policy or that case is within coverage, 91 A.L.R. 1530.

Bringing action against employer as an election or estoppel precluding claim under Workmen's Compensation Act, 94 A.L.R. 1430.

Workmen's Compensation Act as exclusive of remedy by action against employer for injury or disease not compensable under act, 100 A.L.R. 519; 121 A.L.R. 1143.

Award under Workmen's Compensation Act as bar to or ground for reduction of claim under act of another state, 101 A.L.R. 1445; 150 A.L.R. 431; 169 A.L.R. 1185.

Employee's right of election after injury or disability as between benefits or Workmen's Compensation Act and action at law against employer, 117 A.L.R. 515.

Construction and application of provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act that compensation for specific injury or injuries under the act shall be exclusive of all other compensation, 129 A.L.R. 663.

Constitutionality, construction, and application of provision of Workmen's Compensation Act for deduction in computing compensation on account of recovery from a third person responsible for the injury, 142 A.L.R. 170.

Limitation of action by employee, his representative or beneficiaries, against third person for injury or death of employee as affected by the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 143 A.L.R. 284.

Liability of insurance carrier under Workmen's Compensation Act in respect of personal injury to or death of employee where because of relationship between employee and employer recovery would inure in whole or in part to employer, 147 A.L.R. 115.

Common-law remedy against general employer by employee of independent contractor or against independent contractor by employee of subcontractor, as affected by specific provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act relating to employees of such persons, 151 A.L.R. 1359; 166 A.L.R. 813.

Right of employee who has not received award under Workmen's Compensation Act to maintain action against physician for malpractice, 154 A.L.R. 315.

Workmen's compensation: remedy as between subcontractor and principal contractor (or independent contractor and contractee) in respect of compensated injury to employee of one due to negligence of other, where injured employee had no remedy apart from the act, 166 A.L.R. 1221.

Application for, or award, denial, or acceptance of, compensation under State Workmen's Compensation Act as precluding action under Federal Employers' Liability Act by one engaged in interstate commerce within that act, 6 A.L.R.2d 581.

Scope of provision in group health or accident insurance policy excluding from coverage sickness or accidents arising out of, or in the course of, employment, 47 A.L.R.2d 1240.

Matters concluded, in action at law to recover for the same injury, by decision or finding made in workmen's compensation proceeding, 84 A.L.R.2d 1036.

Application for, or receipt of, unemployment compensation benefits as affecting claim for workmen's compensation, 96 A.L.R.2d 941.

Collateral source rule: right of tort-feasor to mitigate opponent's damages for loss of earning capacity by showing that his compensation, notwithstanding disability, has been paid by his employer, 7 A.L.R.3d 516.

Right to maintain direct action against fellow employee for injury or death covered by workmen's compensation, 21 A.L.R.3d 845; 57 A.L.R.4th 888.

Right to maintain malpractice suit against injured employee's attending physician notwithstanding receipt of workmen's compensation award, 28 A.L.R.3d 1066.

Insured's receipt of or right to workmen's compensation benefits as affecting recovery under accident, hospital, or medical expense policy, 40 A.L.R.3d 1012.

Workmen's compensation provision as precluding employee's action against employer for fraud, false imprisonment, defamation, or the like, 46 A.L.R.3d 1279.

Workmen's compensation: attorney's fee or other expenses of litigation incurred by employee in action against third-party tort-feasor as charge against employer's distributive share, 74 A.L.R.3d 854.

Right of employee to maintain common-law action for negligence against workmen's compensation insurance carrier, 93 A.L.R.3d 598.

What conduct is willful, intentional, or deliberate within Workmen's Compensation Act provision authorizing tort action for such conduct, 96 A.L.R.3d 1064.

Modern status of effect of State Workmen's Compensation Act on right of third-person tort-feasor to contribution or indemnity from employer of injured or killed workman, 100 A.L.R.3d 350.

Employer's tort liability to worker for concealing workplace hazard or nature or extent of injury, 9 A.L.R.4th 778.

Workmen's Compensation Act as furnishing exclusive remedy for employee injured by product manufactured, sold, or distributed by employer, 9 A.L.R.4th 873.

Modern status: "Dual capacity doctrine" as basis for employee's recovery from employer in tort, 23 A.L.R.4th 1151.

Worker's compensation immunity as extending to one owning controlling interest in employer corporation, 30 A.L.R.4th 948.

Third-party tortfeasor's right to have damages recovered by employee reduced by amount of employee's workers' compensation benefits, 43 A.L.R.4th 849.

Workers' compensation law as precluding employee's suit against employer for third person's criminal attack, 49 A.L.R.4th 926.

Workers' Compensation Act as precluding tort action for injury to or death of employee's unborn child, 55 A.L.R.4th 792.

Willful, wanton, or reckless conduct of coemployee as ground of liability despite bar of workers' compensation law, 57 A.L.R.4th 888.

"Dual capacity doctrine" as basis for employee's recovery for medical malpractice from company medical personnel, 73 A.L.R.4th 115.

Workers' compensation: third-party tort liability of corporate officer to injured workers, 76 A.L.R.4th 365.

Workers' compensation: coverage of injury occurring in parking lot provided by employer, while employee was going to or coming from work, 4 A.L.R.5th 443.

Workers' compensation: coverage of injury occurring between workplace and parking lot provided by employer, while employee is going to or coming from work, 4 A.L.R.5th 585.

Right to workers' compensation for injuries suffered after termination of employment, 10 A.L.R.5th 245.

Pre-emption by workers' compensation statute of employee's remedy under state "whistleblower" statute, 20 A.L.R.5th 677.

Right of employer or workers' compensation carrier to lien against, or reimbursement out of, uninsured or underinsured motorist proceeds payable to employee injured by third party, 33 A.L.R.5th 587.

Workers' compensation as precluding employee's suit against employer for sexual harassment in the workplace, 51 A.L.R.5th 163.

Contractual waiver of exclusivity of workers' compensation remedy, 117 A.L.R.5th 441.

Postaccident conduct by employer, employer's insurer, or employer's employees in relation to workers' compensation claim as waiving, or estopping employer from asserting, exclusivity otherwise afforded by workers' compensation statute, 120 A.L.R.5th 513.

Liability of employer, supervisor, or manager for intentionally or recklessly causing employee emotional distress - Age discrimination, 11 A.L.R.6th 447.

Liability of employer, supervisor, or manager for intentionally or recklessly causing employee emotional distress - accusation or implication of employee's dishonesty, 21 A.L.R.6th 671.

Construction and application of exclusive remedy rule under state workers' compensation statutes with respect to liability for injury or death of employee as passenger in employer-provided vehicle - requisites for, and factors affecting, applicability and who may invoke rule, 42 A.L.R.6th 545.

Construction and application of exclusive remedy rule under state workers' compensation statute with respect to liability for injury or death of employee as passenger in employer-provided vehicle - against whom may rule be invoked and application of rule to particular situations and employees, 43 A.L.R.6th 375.

Exclusive remedy provision of state workers' compensation statute as applied to injuries sustained during or as the result of horseplay, joking, fooling, or the like, 44 A.L.R.6th 545.