Case Law Update: When is the Refusal of Suitable Light Duty Work Justified in Georgia?
By: Sara Phillips
In Taylor v. Argos, USA,1 the Georgia Court of Appeals addressed the question of whether a refusal of suitable light duty employment was justified when the basis for the refusal hinged on issues unrelated to the claimant’s work injury. In Taylor, the claimant worked as a truck driver who sustained a compensable physical injury on September 4, 2019. The claimant later returned to light duty work on September 13, 2019. Initially, the claimant performed light duty work for his employer, Argos. However, when Argos could no longer offer light duty work, it arranged for continued light duty work at a non-profit, Arms Wide Open. The claimant’s work with Arms Wide Open continued until the organization shut down on March 15, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Counsel for the employer/insurer then contacted claimant’s counsel to offer light duty work with Argos. In response, the claimant’s counsel ultimately declined the light duty position on the claimant’s behalf, writing, “[The claimant] is high risk and has to shelter in place. He is diabetic and he is 67 along with being an African American. He cannot return to work regardless of light duty.” Thereafter, Argos terminated the claimant for job abandonment.
The claimant filed a hearing request, seeking temporary total disability (TTD) benefits from March 16, 2020, and continuing. Following an evidentiary hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) awarded TTD benefits from March 16, 2020, and continuing. The employer/insurer appealed to the State Board’s Appellate Division, which reversed the ALJ’s Award, finding the claimant’s refusal of the light duty position was not justified as the reasons for his refusal were personal and unrelated to his work injury. The claimant appealed this decision to the Superior Court of Dekalb County which affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision by operation of law.
The claimant filed a discretionary appeal to the Georgia Court of Appeals, which accepted the appeal and ultimately reversed and remanded the case back to the Appellate Division for a specific factual finding on the reason the claimant failed to return to work with Argos and to apply the correct legal standard to determine if the claimant’s failure to return to work was “justified.”
Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 34-9-240(a), “if an injured employee refuses employment procured for him or her and suitable to his or her capacity, such employee shall not be entitled to any compensation, except benefits pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 34-9-263, at any time during the continuance of such refusal unless in the opinion of the board such refusal was justified.” To determine whether a refusal of light duty work is justified, the court of appeals cited O.C.G.A. § 34-9-240, describing the language of the statute as a two-prong test. First, the court must determine whether the light duty position is suitable for the employee's capacity. If the light duty position is suitable, then the court must determine whether a refusal of such light duty employment is “justified.”
In Taylor, there was no dispute over the suitability of the light duty position. Accordingly, the court of appeals turned its attention to whether the claimant’s refusal was justified. In reaching its conclusions, the court of appeals found the basis for the claimant’s refusal of the light duty position related to his physical capacity, even though those concerns did not stem from his September 4, 2019 work injury. In reaching the latter determination, the court of appeals cited several prior cases, concluding “there is no requirement that an employee’s refusal to return to work correlate to the work injury in order for the employee to be justified in refusing under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-240(a).”
Neither party was pleased with the decision of the court of appeals. From a defense perspective, should the court of appeals reasoning hold, an injured worker could refuse suitable light duty employment for essentially any physical concern, regardless of the relationship to the work injury. The claimant did not walk away feeling victorious either as the decision did not award the benefits sought and allowed the Appellate Division the opportunity to find his refusal remained unjustified. Indeed, the Claimant filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the court of appeals denied.
Unfortunately, this case settled prior to the Appellate Division rendering an updated decision on remand and providing further guidance. However, if the Appellate Division had the opportunity to render a further decision with respect to the claimant’s refusal, we suspect the State Board would still find the claimant’s refusal unjustified but would alter the language of the Award to satisfy the requirements of the court of appeals’ decision. Therefore, while we may not be afforded the benefit of further opinions from the Appellate Division of the State Board as it relates to this case, we do not believe there is reason to fear the State Board will uphold an onslaught of claimants “justifiably” refusing light duty positions for any physical afflictions from which they may suffer.
1 375 Ga. App. 49, 913 S.E.2d 126 (2025), reconsideration denied (March 20, 2025).
Attorney Contact Info
Sara Phillips
sara.phillips@swiftcurrie.com
404.888.6134
