Although it was always a difficult defense to apply, the Common Law Rycroft is defense, in which an employer/insurer can deny an entirety that is negotiated as a whole – in its functionality, which is based on a recent decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals. Previously in Georgia Electric Company et al. v.
The test showed whether the wrong statement of an employee on their physical constitution excludes the employee's claim for workers. The Supreme Court decided whether (1) the employee knowingly and deliberately made the wrong representation of his physical constitution, (2) The employer based on the wrong presentation, and the trust was an essential factor in attitudes, and (3) there is a causal connection between the wrong presentation and the injury, the claim for employees is barred. With the lack of an earlier clear intentions, the Supreme Court determined the legislative intent of a review of the employee compensation laws, which was based on sections of the OCGA ยงยง 34-9-17, 19 and 280 (2) of the Georgia Workers' compensation Act (chapter 9). The Supreme Court made it clear that all three elements for defense must be present. Usually the third element can be the most challenging to prove. This is because a causal medical opinion is often necessary to prove a clear and significant connection between the impaired body part and the accident. However, the legal judge can also close the same, e.g. Yes, this was an actual case in which the employer prevailed.
The Rycroft defense was made in a decision by the Georgia Court of Appeal in the case of McKay against Inalfa Dach Systems, Inc. et al. In McKay, the court checked whether the Rycroft defense is still available after the employer has gained knowledge of the existing physical condition of the employee before a second injury.
In McKay, the employees started working as an assembly operator in December 2020. Although after an accident from 2012 with inalfa roof systems, the employees suffered several injuries to their cervical spine, shoulder, shoulder, ribs and wrists, she specifically contested the Medigle-in-2020 examination. After this accident, the employer learned about her accident and injuries from 2012. After medical treatment, however, she returned to the same position in September 2021. At this point, the employer had learned about her injury before employment and her false presentation and kept the employee in her position despite this knowledge. Shortly afterwards, the employee was involved in a second accident at work, which suffered injuries to the neck and back this time.
After this second accident, the employee requested hearings for both accidents. The State Board of Workers' Compensation rejected both claims in the context of Rycroft defense, although the employee mentioned the employer's injuries in 2012 during the period between the first and second accidents. Although the employee had no Georgia authority on this topic, he took the chance and took against rejection of her second work. The argumented defense of Rycroft was not applicable for the injury in September 2021 because the employer found out after her first accident after her first accident and put her back into the same position before her second accident.
In this most recent decision, the Court of Appeal lifted the allocation of the State Board by believing that the Rycroft defense is not correct if the employer receives knowledge of the wrong representation and/or already existing condition of an employee, but before the injury to work and maintains the employee despite this knowledge. As a result of this decision, an employer can do without his potential Rycroft defense in this scenario. Since the Court of Appeal stated the validity of the Rycroft defense, it was also attacked, but without the authority to remove it, an appeal at the Supreme Court in Georgia could be in a decision.
This decision is important for employers because it confirms that the Rycroft defense is still available. However, if an employer learns at any time after using the false representation of an employee and still retains the employee, Rycroft defense will be dispensed with. Of course there are other potential strategies, such as It is always best to explore your legal options with the compensation insurance lawyer for the remuneration of employees.
Marc Sirotkin, a partner of the law firm Swift Currie, defends employer and insurance provider in employee allowance claims, treats the reimbursement of client judgments by seizure and protects judgments from insolvency court and processes the claims for investigation. It can be reached at marc.sirotkin@swiftcurrie.com.
