Employee’s disobedience may preclude comp recovery

An employee who disobeys an employer’s instructions and acts in a dangerous fashion may not be entitled to workers compensation benefits, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled.

Adrian Burdette was employed by Eatonton, Georgia-based Chandler Telecom L.L.C. as a cellphone tower technician in November 2012 when he was injured in a fall. A supervisor instructed Mr. Burdette and other crew members to climb down the tower rather than using a controlled descent at the conclusion of their shifts, according to the ruling handed down Monday.

Mr. Burdette attempted a controlled descent despite the repeated protests of the crew’s lead tower hand who was with him. During the controlled descent, Mr. Burdette fell and landed on an ice bridge, injuring his ankle, leg and hip, court records show.

Georgia’s State Board of Workers’ Compensation concluded that Mr. Burdette could not receive comp benefits because he engaged in willful misconduct by defying his supervisor’s instructions, a decision that was affirmed by a Georgia Superior Court.

However, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed that decision, saying Mr. Burdette’s actions did not constitute willful misconduct because his actions were not of a “quasi criminal nature involving the intentional doing of something either with the knowledge that it is likely to result in serious injury, or with a wanton and reckless disregard of its probable consequences.”

In a unanimous decision Monday, the Georgia Supreme Court found that the appellate court erred in its ruling.

The “mere violation of instructions or the mere doing of a hazardous act in which the danger is obvious cannot constitute willful misconduct,” the high court said. “But this does not mean that the intentional violation of rules cannot ever constitute willful misconduct when the violation entails knowingly doing a hazardous act in which the danger is obvious. Rather, in such cases, the finder of fact must determine whether such an intentional act was done either with the knowledge that it was likely to result in serious injury, or with the wanton and reckless disregard of its probable consequences.”

The high court remanded the case to the workers comp board, finding that the appellate court violated case law by substituting itself as a fact-finding body when reviewing a comp decision.