The New Home-Workspace: How The Sudden Shift To A Predominately Remote Work Force Highlights The Need To Revisit Cartersville City Schools v. Johnson

• Published date: 20 August 2021
• Subject Matter: Insurance, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Coronavirus (COVID-19), Insurance Laws and Products, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Personal Injury, Employment and Workforce Wellbeing
• Law Firm: Drew Eckl & Farnham, LLP
• Author: Mr Hunter Garrett

The COVID-19 pandemic sent a large percentage of the workforce out of the traditional office and into the remote workspace. While many companies are beginning to phase back into onsite work for their employees, a recent poll from Pew Research suggests over half the current workforce hopes to continue working from home even after the pandemic is over. Additionally, many companies are even reporting increased productivity and decreased overhead costs, so it appears the pandemic will have a lasting impact on where employees are located during work hours for a large portion of American workforce. For workers' compensation purposes, this undoubtedly places the employer and insurer at a disadvantage when it comes to defending claims. The shift to the home workspace not only takes control of the work environment out of the hands of the employer, but also, in many cases, allows employees to be the only witnesses to their own work-related injuries. Once an alleged injury occurs, it will be very difficult to determine whether the employee was injured while engaged in work for their employer or while completing personal tasks. This, of course, is a tremendous concern for Georgia employers and their insurers.

Georgia's statutes do not specifically address home workspaces, however, for an injury to be compensable under the state Workers' Compensation Act, employees have the burden of proving they sustained a compensable, disabling injury arising out of and occurring in the scope of their employment. O.C.G.A. ' 34-9-1(4); Dasher v. City of Valdosta, 217 GA. App. 351 (1995); Holt Service Co. v. Modlin, 163 Ga. App. 283 (1982). While the statute and case law were certainly developed with the traditional office workspace in mind, they apply nonetheless to remote workspaces. An injury "arises out of" the employment when a reasonable person, after considering the circumstance of the employment, would perceive a causal connection between the conditions under which the employee worked and the injury received. Chaparral Boats, Inc. v. Heath, 269 Ga. App. 339 (2004). Furthermore, injuries do not "arise out of" employment when they cannot fairly be traced to the employment as a contributing proximate cause, AND when the injury comes from a hazard to which the employee would have been equally exposed apart from employment. Id at 343-46.

An injury occurs "in the scope of" employment when the injury occurred 1) within the period of employment 2) at a place where the employee may...