Georgia Light Duty Concerns After Taylor v. Argos

A case decided recently in the Georgia Court of Appeals could have wide-reaching implications for workers’ compensation coverage. 

John Taylor was a truck driver for Argos USA when he was involved in a work-related vehicle accident in 2019. His injuries and that the accident was in the course of his employment were undisputed; Argos accepted his claim and provided temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits that included light-duty work. This arrangement lasted until March 15, 2020, at which time the light-duty position was halted because of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

At that time, the claimant sought temporary total disability benefits because his light-duty workplace had closed, but the Georgia State Board of Workers’ Compensation denied his request. The Board said he was not justified in refusing to return to light-duty work because his concerns, which were health risks because of his age and diabetes (during the pandemic), were not related to his work injury. 

The Court of Appeals ultimately reversed the decision of the Board, saying the the Board was incorrect in applying a too-narrow standard in this case.

Basis for Court of Appeals decision in Taylor v. Argos, USA et al.

Error in legal theory

Georgia law provided justification for the claimant’s refusal to work because of his health concerns. The global pandemic at that time affected his physical capacity and conditions related to his employment. The court held that the refusal to accept light duty does not have to correlate directly with the work injury to be justified. Instead, under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-240(a), the refusal must relate to the employee’s physical capacity or other life-disrupting factors (such as health conditions, relocation burdens, or daily travel constraints).

Therefore, this decision expands the scope of circumstances in which a worker may refuse light duty without losing their TTD benefits. Health conditions that are not work-related (in this case, age and diabetes) could be grounds for refusal even though they were not caused directly by the compensable injury.

Legal precedent

Previous cases, such as Brasher v. U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Harris set forth justifiable refusals. These decisions indicated that the reason doesn’t need to strictly correlate with the work-related injury if there are other factors that affect the individual’s ability to work safely.

How does the Taylor decision affect Georgia workers’ comp claimants and employers?

An injured Georgia worker might have more leeway post-Taylor if they are offered light-duty work to refuse if they reasonably believe it could endanger their health. This is especially true if there’s an extraordinary condition present (for example, a pandemic or effects from a natural disaster). 

Both the employer and the insurer must carefully document safety measures, the job description, and any risk mitigation available when making a light-duty offer; a vague reassurance of safety might not be enough under the Taylor precedent. 

A dispute usually shifts the burden to the employer or insurer to show that the offered work was truly safe and suitable, and the claimant’s reasons for refusal were unreasonable. However, there are limitations: Refusal still must be justified under the statute. Future cases might limit refusals based on general health fears or psychological concerns.

What to do if you’re concerned about your Georgia light-duty work assignment

1. Carefully review the light-duty job offer.
   • Ask for a written description of the specific duties, hours, and physical requirements 
   • Confirm whether the assignment is consistent with restrictions from your doctor. If not, this is a red flag that the job needs to be modified.
2. Speak with your treating physician.
   • Share the job description with your doctor and ask whether it is safe for you. 
   • If you have other health conditions that would be affected, make sure your doctor documents how those issues would affect your ability to work safely.
3. Document your concerns.
   • Maintain a record of communications with your employer and the insurer. 
   • If you feel unsafe or medically unable to perform the duties, write your reasons (in detail). This documentation can be critical later if your benefits are questioned.
4. Know your rights under the Taylor decision.
   • Prior to Taylor, Georgia law focused narrowly on whether the refusal was connected to the work injury, itself. After Taylor, the court may accept other legitimate medical or safety concerns as justification. This can include additional health conditions or environmental risks that make the job unsafe for you. 
   • The refusal must still be reasonable and supported by evidence; simply disliking the work or wanting an alternative won’t protect your benefits.

Finally, you might want to consider consulting a workers’ compensation lawyer. If your workers’ compensation claim is straightforward, happens at work, and the employer and insurer don’t push back, you probably don’t need our help. But if there are any complicating factors—such as a dispute over light-duty work—it’s time for an attorney to represent your interests. The team at Gerber & Elkins is always ready. We’ll help present medical evidence, argue that your refusal was justified, and defend your right to ongoing benefits.

If you have concerns about light duty after the Taylor decision, don’t simply say “no.” Instead, get medical support, document your concerns, communicate clearly with your employer, and contact a Georgia workers’ compensation lawyer. The new case law gives Georgia workers more room to refuse unsafe or unreasonable assignments, but you’ll need solid proof to protect your benefits.