RIDLEY v. MONROE, 256 Ga. App. 686

Ruffin, Judge. Monica Ridley was injured in an automobile collision while riding in a car driven by her co-worker, Teresa Monroe. Claiming that Monroe’s negligence caused the collision, Ridley sued Monroe for damages. Monroe moved for

summary judgment, arguing that the exclusive remedy provision of Georgia’s Workers’ Compensation Act (“the Act”) barred the claim. The trial court granted Monroe’s motion, and Ridley appeals. For reasons that follow, we affirm.

Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” In this case, the relevant facts are undisputed. Following the collision, Ridley filed a workers’ compensation claim against her employer. Although the wreck occurred during her lunch break, Ridley asserted that she was on a work-related errand at the time and, therefore, was injured in the course of her employment.

Although Ridley’s employer initially controverted the claim, it ultimately entered a settlement agreement with Ridley and paid her compensation “in compromise and lump sum settlement of all disputed issues and claims within the scope and purpose of OCGA § 34-9-15.” Paragraph 3 of that agreement provided: “It is agreed and acknowledged by the parties that this claim is not compensable under [the] Georgia Workers’ Compensation Law.

Thus, all parties request that the State Board of Workers’ Compensation enter an award that denies liability on behalf of the employer and insurer.” As required by law, the parties submitted the agreement to the State Board of Workers’ Compensation, which approved the settlement. Citing to this agreement, Monroe moved for

summary judgment, arguing that because Ridley asserted and settled a workers’ compensation claim, the exclusive remedy provision embodied in OCGA § 34-9-11 barred her negligence action. Ridley acknowledged Georgia’s exclusive remedy rule, which provides, in part, that “when an injury is sustained during the course of employment as a result of the negligence of a co-worker, the employee’s sole remedy is against the employer pursuant to the . . .

Georgia Workers’ Compensation Act.” She noted, however, that she settled her workers’ compensation claim on a no-liability basis with the stipulation that the claim did not fall within the Act. According to Ridley, therefore, the exclusive remedy provision does not bar her suit against Monroe. The trial court rejected Ridley’s argument, concluding that by pursuing and settling the workers’ compensation claim, she brought herself within the Act and its exclusive remedy restriction. We find no error.

The Workers’ Compensation Act permits parties to settle claims short of trial, even where the parties dispute whether the Act applies to a claim.

OCGA § 34-9-15, which governs and regulates workers’ compensation settlements, provides: Whenever it shall appear to the board, by stipulation of the parties or otherwise, that there is a bona fide dispute as to facts, the determination of which will materially affect the right of the employee or dependent to recover compensation or the amount of compensation to be recovered, or that there is a genuine dispute as to the applicability of this chapter, and it further appears that the parties have agreed upon a settlement between themselves, which settlement gives due - regard and weight to the conflicting evidence available relating to the disputed facts or to the questions as to the applicability of this chapter, then, upon such determination, the board shall approve the settlement and enter an award conforming to the terms thereof.

In July 2000, the legislature amended OCGA § 34-9-15 to authorize the board to consider and approve “no-liability” stipulations in settlement agreements. The amended provision allows the board “to approve a stipulated settlement between the parties which concludes that there is no liability under this

chapter and to retain jurisdiction to enforce any agreement which resolves, in whole or in part, a claim filed with the board.” The legislature thus recognized that, where a dispute over liability arises but the parties want to settle a claim, they may decide to enter a “no-liability” stipulation. OCGA § 34-9-15 (

b) specifically empowers the board to approve and exercise jurisdiction over these settlements. Through OCGA § 34-9-15, the legislature created specific rules and procedures for settling workers’ compensation claims. Nothing in that Code section, however, removes a settlement agreement from the Act’s exclusive remedy provision. As we have found on several occasions, OCGA § 34-9-11 bars tort suits against an employer or its employees following a workers’ compensation settlement.

And we cannot accept Ridley’s argument that an employee avoids the exclusive remedy’s bar simply by inserting a “no-liability” clause into a settlement agreement. When the legislature specifically addressed “no-liability” stipulations in OCGA § 34-9-15 (b), it gave no indication that such stipulations remove a claim from the Act or the exclusive remedy restriction.

The Workers’ Compensation Act is a “humanitarian measure that should be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose of providing relief to the injured employee and protecting employers from excessive damage awards.” Permitting parties to circumvent the Act’s exclusive remedy restriction simply by settling a claim on a “no-liability” basis undermines this purpose and eviscerates a legislative scheme in which the sole remedy lies against the employer.

The analysis suggested by Ridley, and advocated by the dissent, would allow an employer and injured employee in a “negligent coworker” case to settle a workers’ compensation claim and agree to a no-liability stipulation, with the expectation that the employee would then pursue claims against the co-worker in the potentially more lucrative tort arena. By including “no-liability” language in their settlement agreement, an employer and injured employee could thereby dodge the exclusive remedy provision and leave the employee’s otherwise protected co-worker open to liability. We cannot endorse this analysis.

Without some signal that the legislature intended to exempt “no-liability” settlements from the exclusive remedy provision, we refuse to allow parties to avoid the statutory bar — and fundamentally change the workers’ compensation scheme — in this manner. Until the legislature directs otherwise, parties cannot engineer exceptions to this provision merely by incorporating “no-liability” language into the boilerplate of their workers’ compensation settlement agreements. Ridley’s citation to Heffley v. Adkins does not require a different result.

The Heffley claimant was injured while riding in a car driven by a Waffle House employee. She sought workers’ compensation benefits from Waffle House, but Waffle House denied that the claimant was an employee.

Eventually, Waffle House and the claimant stipulated that “she did not sustain a compensable injury and that Waffle House [was] not liable to her for workers’ compensation benefits.” We subsequently permitted her negligence action against the employee driver to proceed, finding that the “no compensation award” under the stipulation established that the claimant was not a Waffle House employee and, consequently, that the exclusive remedy provision did not bar her claim against the driver.

As an initial matter, we decided Heffley well before the legislature amended OCGA § 34-9-15 to specifically address “no-liability” stipulations.

Furthermore, in contrast to Heffley, the “no-liability” stipulation in this case did not result in an award of “no compensation.” Although Ridley’s board-approved settlement denied any liability on behalf of the employer, she received compensation through the agreement “in compromise and lump sum settlement of all disputed issues and claims.” We find, therefore, that the exclusive remedy provision applies here, despite the “no-liability” language in the workers’ compensation settlement agreement. As noted by the dissent, Ridley apparently suffered a severe injury in the wreck.

That fact, however, cannot sway our decision. Ridley alleged that she was injured in the course of her employment, sought workers’ compensation benefits from her employer, and ultimately settled her claim for a lump sum amount pursuant to OCGA § 34-9-15. Under these circumstances, the trial court properly found that OCGA § 34-9-11 barred Ridley’s claims against Monroe. Judgment affirmed. Pope, P. J., Andrews, P. J., Johnson, P. J., and Mikell, J., concur. Barnes and Phipps, JJ, dissent. See OCGA § 34-9-11 (a). OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Asked to admit below that “[a] settlement agreement [had] been reached whereby [she had] been paid or [would] receive monetary compensation or payment of benefits as a result of the . . . worker’s compensation claim,” Ridley only denied that “benefits under workers’ compensation were paid.” See Justice v. Davidson Kennedy Co., 194 Ga. App. 585, 586-587 (391 SE2d 414) (1990) (workers’ compensation settlement is not binding until approved by the board). Dickey v. Harden, 202 Ga.

App. 645-646 (414 SE2d 924) (1992).' See also OCGA § 34-9-11 (a). (Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 34-9-15 (a) (Supp. 2001); see also Justice, supra at 586 (“ ‘OCGA § 34-9-15 provides the sole method by which claims arising under the Workers’ Compensation Act may be settled.’ ”). See OCGA § 34-9-15 (b) (Supp. 2001); Ga. L. 2000, p. 1321. OCGA § 34-9-15 (b) (Supp. 2001). See Dove v. Sentry Ins., 236 Ga.

App. 754, 755-756 (513 SE2d 289) (1999) (child could not bring wrongful death suit against his deceased father’s employer after his mother settled a workers’ compensation claim relating to the death, even though the employer initially denied liability under the Act); Nat. Data Corp. v. Hooper, 185 Ga. App. 866, 868 (366 SE2d 189) (1988) (employee could not sue employer for personal injuries after settling workers’ compensation claim); Thorn v. Phillips, 164 Ga.

App. 47, 48 (296 SE2d 251) (1982) (employee who settled workers’ compensation claim for injuries suffered when he was struck by a vehicle at work could not bring separate tort action against co-worker who was driving vehicle). See OCGA § 34-9-15 (b) (Supp. 2001). McCarty v. Delta Pride, 247 Ga. App. 734, 736 (1) (b) (545 SE2d 117) (2001). Employers might even use the “no-liability” stipulation as a bargaining chip to obtain a better settlement. See Thorn, supra. See McCarty, supra (when construing a statute, court must “attempt to implement the intent and purpose of the legislature in enacting the law”). 209 Ga.

App. 736 (434 SE2d 537) (1993). Id. See id. at 736-737 (1). Id. at 736. See OCGA § 34-9-11 (a); see also Thorn, supra.