Wise v. City of Adel
| Decision Date | 19 April 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. A90A0671,A90A0671 |
| Citation | 195 Ga.App. 559,394 S.E.2d 540 |
| Parties | WISE v. CITY OF ADEL et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Morris & Webster, Craig A. Webster, Adel, for appellant.
Young, Young & Clyatt, Robert M. Clyatt, Valdosta, for appellees.
The appellant, William Wise, injured his left elbow during his employment as a captain of the appellee's fire department, and received workers' compensation benefits. Eventually, he returned to work, but he continued to experience pain and stiffness in the injured elbow; his treating physician recommended a change to light work, and the appellee consequently offered to employ Wise as a radio dispatcher for the appellee's police department. This shift would have involved a salary reduction, but the appellee also indicated that it would pay Wise temporary partial disability benefits and transfer him back to the fire department when he was physically able to return to normal duty. Wise refused this offer of light duty, because it would have required giving up a part-time job at a bank that he had been able to maintain with the work schedule of the fire department (on 24 hours, off 48 hours). Even including receipt of temporary partial disability benefits, the proposed job transfer to the police department would have resulted in an income reduction of $163 per week.
When Wise refused the police department dispatcher job, the appellee suspended all benefits, and the administrative law judge denied Wise's claim for recommencement of disability income benefits. The full board, however, reversed, after finding that the police dispatcher job was not suitable employment and that Wise had been justified in refusing it. The superior court in turn found as a matter of law that the light duty job offered to Wise was suitable employment, and reversed the full board. We granted this discretionary appeal, and reverse the superior court.
OCGA § 34-9-240 provides that "[i]f an injured employee refuses employment procured for him and suitable to his capacity, he shall not be entitled to any compensation at any time during the continuance of such refusal unless in the opinion of the board such refusal was justified." In Clark v. Ga. Kraft Co., 178 Ga.App. 884, 885, 345 S.E.2d 61 (1986), this court emphasized that "the board is vested with a broad discretion in determining whether proffered employment is refused justifiably." In Clark, this court found no abuse of discretion in the board's determination that the employee justifiably refused proffered employment that presented no challenge or opportunity for advancement. Similarly, we find no abuse of discretion in the board's determination of that issue in the instant case. Cf. McDaniel v. Roper Corp., 149 Ga.App. 864, 256 S.E.2d 146 (1979).
Judgment reversed.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Adel v. Wise, S90G1156
...of Appeals in this case, the board has a wide discretion to determine whether the employee's refusal was justified. Wise, supra, 195 Ga.App. at 560, 394 S.E.2d 540. However, to say that this discretion is without limits would render meaningless the first prong of the statute. The board woul......
-
Swift Loan & Finance Co., Inc. v. Duncan, A90A0656
... ... We find no error. Appellant's reliance upon Brown v. City of Fitzgerald, 177 Ga.App. 859, 341 S.E.2d 476 (1986), is misplaced. In Brown, the jury was ... ...
-
Wise v. City of Adel, A90A0671
...Robert M. Clyatt, Valdosta, for appellees. ANDREWS, Judge. On certiorari our decision reversing the trial court in Wise v. City of Adel, 195 Ga.App. 559, 394 S.E.2d 540 (1990) was reversed in City of Adel v. Wise, 261 Ga. 53, 401 S.E.2d 522 (1991). Accordingly, our decision is vacated and t......