In my fifteen years of practicing workers’ compensation, I have seen a lot of situations, including, but not limited to, employers denying workers’ compensation benefits, denying medical treatments, and employers trying to find reasons to suspend claimant’s benefits. Nothing feels better than seeing progressive judges working hard to protect justice and rights of injured workers. In a recent Court of Appeals decision, the Judges have once again made a decision that protects the injured worker from an unreasonable suspension of workers’ compensation benefits. The decision lays a strong foundation and sends a warning message to employers across the states in their practice of denying workers’ compensation benefits.

In McDuffie v. Ocmulgee EMC, McDuffie injured his knee while working for EMC in 2009. EMC initially paid McDuffie his workers’ compensation indemnity benefits but later suspended the benefits for McDuffie failing to disclose his work injury in 2002. EMC later reinstated the benefits when a surgery was recommended and performed on McDuffie in March 2001. Three months later, when the doctor opined that McDuffie had returned to his pre-injury baseline i.e post-2002 condition, EMC once against suspended McDuffie’s on the ground of a change of condition for better.

McDuffie contended that EMC was required to show that suitable employment was available. The Court of Appeals agreed. The court noted that regardless of the circumstances, the Workers’ Compensation Act is highly remedial in nature, and must be construed liberally in favor of the claimant in order to accomplish its beneficent purposes. EMC could not suspend McDuffie’s workers’ compensation benefits based on a change in condition for the better without showing that McDuffie could return to work because of that change and that EMC offered McDuffie suitable work. The key is whether there was suitable work available and offered to McDuffie to diminish and terminate the loss in income. And if suitable work was not available, then EMC was required to continue paying indemnity benefits. As a result, the case was remanded to lower court to determine whether EMC offered suitable work for McDuffie.

Although I did not represent Mr. McDuffie in this case, such a decision is wonderful news to my clients and all injured workers in Georgia. Employers cannot merely assert a change in condition for the better to suspend benefits, but actually have to make all the reasonable attempts to restore the employee to that position. And for me, such a decision certainly reaffirms my belief that my zealous representation will protect my clients’ rights no matter how long it takes, because I know I have the truth on my side. Justice will prevail.

So if you or a family member has been hurt at work, call Poirier Law today for help and for a free consultation. The Poirier Law Firm routinely, successfully represents injured works in industrial accidents. You must have a zealous advocate fighting and protecting your rights.