FI FTH DI VI SI ON

M CFA DDEN, P. J.

, BRA NCH and BETHEL, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

p h y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

M ar ch 16, 2018



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 7 A1 46 9

. CARTERSVILLE CITY S C H OOLS et al

. v

. J OHNSON.

B E T H E L , J u d g e.

In t h i s wo rk ers ’ co m

p en sat i o n act i o n, an ad m i n i s trat i v e law ju d g e (“ ALJ ”) fo r

t h e St at e Bo ard of W o rk ers ’ Co m pen s at i on g ran t ed Cel i a No rri s Jo h ns o n’ s cl ai m fo r

b en efi t s aft er fi n d i n g t hat s he s u s t ai n ed an i n ju ry ari s i n g o u t o f an d i n t h e co u rs e o f

h er em p lo y m en t

. Th e Bo ard ’ s Ap p el l at e Di v i s i o n (“ A ppe lla te D ivisi o n ”) rev ers ed t h e

ALJ ’ s deci s i o n

, f

i n d i n g n o ev i d en ce t o su p po rt t h e award

, an d d en i ed b en efi t s

.

J o h n so n t h en ap p eal ed t o t h e Su p eri o r Co u rt o f Bart o w Co u n t y

, wh i ch rev ers ed t h e

Ap p el l at e Di vi s i o n, t hu s rei n s t at i n g t h e award o f b en efi t s t o J o h ns o n . Pu rs u an t t o a

g ran t ed ap p li cat i o n fo r d i scret io n ary ap p eal

, Cart ers vi l l e Ci t y S c h o o l s an d

Tech n o l o g y In s uran ce Co m p an y (c o l l e c ti v el y

, “ Cart ers v i l l e Ci t y Sch o o ls ”) n o wap p eal

, arg u i n g th e s u p eri o r co u r t m a d e s ev eral erro rs i n reach i n g i t s d eci s i o n

. W e

affi rm b ecau s e t h e Ap p el l at e Di v i s i o n m i s co n s t ru ed t h e l eg al fram ewo rk fo r

d et erm i n i n g wh et h er an i n ju ry aro s e o u t o f em

p l o y m en t an d t herefo re ren d ered a

d eci s i o n co n t rary t o l aw. 1

Pu rs uan t t o OCGA § 3 4 -9 -1 0 3 (a), “ [a] n y part y d i s sat i s fi ed wi t h a d eci s i o n o f

an [ALJ ] o f t h e t r i a l d i v i s i o n o f t he St at e Bo ard of W o rk ers ’ Co m p en sat i o n m ay

ap p eal th at d e c i s i o n t o t he [A] p p el l at e [D] i v is io n o f t h e St at e Bo ard o f W o rk ers ’

Co m p en s at i o n wh i ch s h al l hav e o ri g i n al ap p el lat e j u ri s d i ct i o n i n a l l wo rk ers ’

co m p en s at i o n cas es .” “ Th e Ap p el l at e Di v is i o n i s au th o ri zed t o wei g h t h e ev i d en ce

o f reco rd an d as s es s t h e cred i b i li t y o f wi t nes s es .” S t o kes v. Co wet a Ct y. B d. o f Ed u c.

,

3 1 3 Ga. Ap p . 5 0 5 , 5 0 6 (7 2 2 SE2 d 1 1 8 ) (2 0 12 ) (ci tat i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

If, a f t er as s es s i n g t h e ev i den ce o f reco rd

, t h e Ap p el lat e Di v i s i o n

d et erm i nes t h at t h e fi n d i n g s o f t h e ALJ were s u p p o rt ed b y a

p rep on d eran ce of t h e co m p et en t an d cred i b l e ev i d en ce, th e Ap p el l at e

Di v i si o n m

u s t accep t t h e fact u a l f

i n d i n g s of t h e ALJ

. Bu t

, i f aft er

as s es s i n g t he ev i d en ce o f reco rd

, t h e [A] p p el lat e [D] iv i s i o n co n cl u d es

1 W e h av e ci rcu l a t e d th i s d eci s i on am o n g al l n o n d i s q u al i fi ed ju d g es o f t h e

C o u r t t o co n s i d er wh et her t h i s cas e s h o u ld b e p as sed u p o n b y al l m em b ers o f t h e

Co u rt

. Fewer t h an t h e req u i red n u m b er of ju d g es

, h owev e r

, v o t e d i n fav o r o f a

h eari n g en b an c o n t h e qu es t i o n o f o v erru l i n g S t

. Jo s ep h ’s Ho s p i t a l v. W a rd

, 3 0 0 Ga.

Ap p . 8 4 5

.

2t h e award d o es n ot m eet t h e st at ut e’ s ev i d en t iary s t a n d ard s

, th e

[A] p p el lat e [D] iv i s io n m ay s u b s t i t u t e it s o wn al tern at i v e fi n d i n g s fo r

t h o s e o f t h e ALJ , an d en t er an award acco rd in g l y

.

Id

. (ci t at i o ns o m i t t ed ).

Pu rs uan t t o OCGA § 3 4 -9 -1 0 5 (b ), t h e part i es h av e a ri g ht o f d i rect ap p eal to

t h e s u peri o r co urt aft er a wo rk ers ’ co m p en s at i o n d eci s io n b ec o m e s f i n al at t h e

ad m i n is t rat i v e l ev el

. “ As a rev i ewi n g co urt

, t h e s u p eri o r co u r t ap pl i es an an y

ev i d en ce s tan d ard o f rev i ew t o t h e Bo ard ’ s fi n d i n g s o f fact

, co n s tru i n g t h e ev i d en ce

i n th e l i g h t m o st fav o rab l e t o t h e p art y p rev ai l in g befo re t h e Bo ard

, an d l ack s

au t h o ri t y t o s u b st i t u t e i t s el f as a fact -fi n d i ng b o dy i n l i eu o f t h e Bo ard .” S t o kes

, 3 1 3

Ga. Ap p

. at 5 06 (ci tat io n s o m i t ted ). Bu t “ erro n eo u s ap pl i cat io n s o f l aw t o u n d i s p u t ed

fact s, as wel l as d eci s i o n s b as ed o n erro n eo us t h eo ri es o f la w a r e s u b ject t o t h e d e

n o v o s t an d ard o f rev iew” i n th e s u p eri o r co urt

. Ho m e D ep o t v. McCr ea r y

, 3 0 6 Ga.

Ap p

. 8 0 5

, 8 0 9 (2 ) (7 03 SE2 d 3 92 ) (2 0 1 0 ) ( c i t a t i on an d p u n ct u at i on o m i t t ed ).

“ Ap p eal s t o t h is Co u rt are g o vern ed b y th e s am e s t an d ard s o f rev iew as ap p eal s t o t h e

3s u p eri o r co u rt u n der OCGA § 3 4 -9 -1 0 5.” S t o kes

, 3 1 3 Ga. Ap p

. at 5 0 7 (c i t a t i o n s

o m it t ed ). 2

Vi ewed i n t h e l i g h t m o s t fav o r a b l e t o Cart ers v i ll e Ci t y Sch o o l s as t h e p art y

wh i ch prev ai l ed b efo re t h e Bo ar d ’s A p pel l at e Di v i s i o n

, t h e reco rd sh o ws t h e

fo l l o w i n g

. On Oct o b er 7

, 2 01 4

, J o hn s o n was t each i n g fi ft h g rad e at Cart ers v i l l e

El em en t ary Sch o o l

. W h i l e i n st ru ct i n g t h e st u d en t s

, J o h n s o n w al k ed b ack t o h er d es k

t o p u t an i m ag e u p o n t h e s m art b o ard . Sh e t h en t u rn ed fro m h er co m p u ter an d d es k

t o wal k b ack t o t h e fro n t o f t h e cl as s ro o m an d fel l

, i n j u ri ng h er k nee.

Fo l l owi n g t h e s u rg i cal rep ai r o f h er k n ee, J o h ns o n f i l ed a wo rk ers ’

co m p en s at i o n cl ai m

. At th e a d m i n is t rat i v e h eari n g o n h er cl ai m

, t h e on l y i s s u e in

co n ten t i o n b et ween t h e part i es was wh et h er J oh n s o n ’ s k ne e i n ju ry aro s e o u t o f h er

e m ploy m e n t o r was a n on -co m

p en s ab l e “ i d i op at h ic” i n

ju ry

. Th e AL J f

ound Johnson’ s

k n ee i n j u ry t o b e cau s al l y co n n ect ed to h er em pl o y m en t an d g ran ted wo rk ers ’

co m p en s at i o n b en efi t s

. Sp eci fi cal l y

, t h e ALJ det erm i n ed t h at J o h n s o n ’ s n eces s ary

s wi ft m o v em en t s an d t h e co n fi g u rat i o n o f h er cl as s ro o m cau s ed h er t o “ p l ace acu t e

s t res s o n h er k n ee res u l t in g in t h e i n ju ry s he s u st ai n ed

. ” T h e ALJ wen t o n t o fi n d t h at

2 A n a p p e a l t o t h i s Co u rt fro m a d eci s io n o f a s u p eri o r co u rt rev i ewi n g a

d eci s i o n o f t h e Bo ard i s n o t a m at t er o f ri gh t b u t rat h er i s d i s cret i on ary

. OCGA § 5 -6

-

3 5 (a) (1 ). S

ee a l s o S to kes , 3 1 3 Ga. Ap p

. at 5 0 7

.

4t h es e “ ex t ern al fact ors

. . . creat ed a ri sk an d cau s ed a dan g er wh i ch was p ecu l i ar to

h er wo rk en v i ro n m en t t h at cau sal l y co n n ect s h er em

p l o y m en t t o h er i nju ry .”

Cart ers v i l l e C i t y Sch o o l s ap p eal ed t h e d eci s i o n t o t h e Ap p el l at e Di v i s i o n,

arg u i n g t h e ALJ erred in fi n d i n g J o h n s o n ’ s i n ju ry aro s e o ut o f h er em

p l o y m en t an d

was n o t i d i o p at h i c. Th e A p pel l at e Di vi s i o n rev ers ed t h e ALJ ’ s d eci s i o n , fi n d i n g n o

ev i d en ce t o s u pp o rt t h e ALJ ’ s d et erm i n at i o n t h at J o h ns o n ’ s k n ee i n ju ry was cau s ed

b y h er h av i n g t o w e a v e t h ro u gh t h e t i g h t cl as s ro o m co n fi g u rat i o n

. Th e Ap p el l at e

Di v is i o n fu rt h er co n cl u d ed th at J o h n s o n ’ s k n ee i n ju ry was n ot co m

p en sab l e b ecau s e

“ t h e act o f

t u rn i n g an d wal k i n g was n o t a ri s k un i qu e t o [h er] wo rk

, an d i s a ri s k to

wh i ch s h e wo u l d h av e b een eq u al l y ex po s ed ap art fro m t h e em p lo y m en t .” Rat h er, t h e

Ap p e l l a t e Di v i s i o n co ncl u d ed t h at J o h n s o n ’ s “ i n j u ry was cau s ed b y an id i o p at h i c

fal l [.] ”

J o h n s o n a p p eal ed t o t h e Bart o w Co u nt y Su p eri o r Co u rt

, w h i ch rev ers ed t h e

Ap p el l at e Di v i s i o n an d rei n st at ed t h e wo rk ers ’ co m p en s at io n award

. In i t s ord er, t h e

s u p er i o r c o u r t no ted t h at t h e Ap p el l at e Di v i s i o n h ad em pl o y ed an i n co rrect l eg al

s t an d ard reg ard i n g cau s at i o n wh en reach i n g i t s d eci s i o n

, an d reas o n ed t h at t h e

Ap p el l at e Di v i s i o n ’ s s tan d ard “ wo u ld l ab el an y i n j u ry t h at co ul d b e i n cu rred o ff-s i t e

as ‘ i di o pat h i c.’ ” Th e su p eri or co u rt fu rt h er h el d th at t h ere w as no ev i d en ce t o i n d i cat e

5t h at J o h n so n ’ s fal l w as i d i o p at h i c b ecau s e h er i n ju ry “ aro s e ou t o f h er perfo rm i n g h er

d u t i es as a cl as s ro o m

t each er.” Th i s ap p eal b y Cart ers v il le Ci ty

Sch o o l s fo l l o wed

.

Cart ers v i l l e Ci t y Sch o o ls fi rs t arg ues t h at t h e s u p eri o r c o u rt ex ceed ed i t s

au t h o ri t y an d (a) i m

p ro p erl y s h ift ed t h e bu rd en of d em o ns t rat i n g an acci d en t t o i t

, (b )

d ev iat ed fro m th e fi n d i n gs of fact reach ed b y t h e Ap p el l at e Di v i s i o n

, (c) im p ro p erl y

re-wei g h ed ev id en ce, an d (d ) fai l ed t o v iew ev id en ce in t h e l i g h t m o s t fav o r a b l e to

t h e p art y p rev ai l i n g b efo re t h e Ap p el lat e Di vi s i o n i n v i o l at io n o f O CGA § 3 4 -9 -1 0 5

(c). Cart ers v i l l e Ci t y Sch o ol s fu rt h er arg ues t h at t h e s u peri or co u rt v i o l at ed s t are

d eci s i s an d ap p l ied a n ew l eg al s t an d ard i n fi n d i n g t hat J o h n so n d i d n ot s u s t ai n an

i d i o p at h i c i n

ju ry

.

Fo r an acci den t al i n

ju ry t o b e co m

p en s ab l e u n d er t h e W o rk ers ’ Co m p en s at i o n

Act

, th e i n

j u ry m u s t n o t o n l y o c c u r i n t h e co u rs e o f th e em p lo y m en t

, b ut al s o m

u s t

ari s e o u t o f t h e em

p l o y m en t. OCGA § 3 4 -9 -1 (4 ). S ee al so Ch a p a rr a l B o at

s

, In c. v.

Hea th

, 26 9 Ga. A p p

. 3 3 9

, 3 40 (6 0 6 SE2 d 5 6 7 ) (2 0 0 4 ). Cart ers v i l le Ci t y Sch o o l d o es

n o t d i sp u t e t h e fi n d i n g t h at J oh n s o n su s tai n ed h er kn ee i n ju ry i n t h e co u r s e o f

em pl o y m en t b ecau s e i t o ccu rred wh i l e s h e was t each i n g in h er cl as sro o m

. Rat h er, t h e

d i s p u t ed i s s u e i s wh et h er J o h n s o n carri ed h er b urd en o f s h o w i ng b y a p rep o n d eran ce

6o f t h e ev i d en ce t h at h er acci d en t al i n ju ry aro s e o u t o f h er em

p l o y m en t

. S

ee Ch a p a r r al

Bo a ts , In c. , 2 6 9 Ga. Ap p

. at 3 4 0

.

Pu rs uan t t o OCGA § 34 -9 -1 05 (c), i n th e ab s en ce o f frau d

, th e fact u al fi n d i ng s

o f t h e Ap p el lat e Di v i s i o n are co n cl us i v e, b u t i t s d eci s i o n m ay b e s et as i d e i f i t i s

fo u n d t h at t h e fact s d o no t su p p o rt t h e d eci s i o n

, t h ere i s n o t s u ffi ci en t co m p et en t

ev i d en ce i n t h e reco rd t o warran t m ak i n g t h e d eci si on

, o r t h e d eci s i o n i s co n t rary to

l aw, am o n g o t h er t h i n g s

. S ee OCGA § 3 4 -9 -1 0 5 (c) (3 -5 ).

He r e

, t h e s u p eri o r co u rt h el d t h at t h e Ap p el lat e Di v i s i o n ’ s co n cl u s i o n t h at

J o h n so n ’ s fal l was id i o p at h i c was n o t s u p p o rt ed b y t h e ev i d en ce becau s e h er i n ju ry

“ aro s e o u t of h er p erfo rm i n g h er d u t i es as a cl as s ro om teach er.” T h e s up eri o r co u rt

fu rt her h el d t h at t h e Ap p el l at e Di v i s i o n em p lo y ed t h e i n co rrect l eg al s tan d ard to

d et erm i n e cau s at i on

. T h e su p eri o r co u rt h el d t hat an in ju ry ari ses o u t o f em

p l o y m en t

wh ere t h e i n

ju ry r e s u l t s “ fro m a ri s k reas o n ab ly i n ci d en t t o t h e em p l oy m en t ” an d

wen t o n t o n o t e th at “ a ri s k i s i n ci d en t t o t h e e m p l o ym e n t w h en i t bel o n gs t o

, o r i s

co n nect ed w i t h, wh at a wo rk m an h as t o d o i n fu l fi l l i n g h i s c o n t ract o f s erv i ce.” In

h o l d i n g t h at t h e Ap p el l at e Di v i s i o n co m m it t ed l eg al erro r i n det erm in in g t h e co rrect

l eg al s t an d ard t o ap p l y wh en d et erm in i n g cau s at i o n, t he s u peri o r co u rt s t at ed t h at t h i s

7Co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n s i n Ch a pa r r a l Bo at

s 3 an d St

. Jo s e

p h ’ s Ho s p it a l v. W

a r d 4 wo u ld

“ ren d er al m o st an y i n

ju ry t o b e n o t co m

pen s ab l e u n l es s t he em

p lo y ee i s ru n t h ro u g h

b y a p at en t ed

, p ro p ri et ary Hy s t er p o l e.” Acco rd i n g to t h e s u peri o r co ur t, th e Ap p el l at e

Di v is i o n ’ s co n st ru ct io n of t h e t erm “ i d i op at h ic” u s ed “ a s t an dard t h at wo ul d l ab el an y

i n ju ry t h at co ul d b e i n cu rred o ff-s i t e as i d i o p at hi c.” Th e s u p eri or co u rt n o t ed t h at t h i s

was erro n eo u s

, an d t hat “ [s ] i m p l y b ecau s e an i n

ju ry co u l d o ccu r el s ewh ere d o es n ot

m ak e i t au t o m at i cal l y ‘ i d i o p at hi c.’ ” Th us

, t h e s u p eri o r co u rt co n cl u d ed

, i n ren d eri n g

i t s cau s at i o n an al y si s

, t h at t h e Ap p el l at e Di v i si o n m is ap p li ed t he l eg al t erm

“ i d io p at h i c.”

In d e t e r m i n i n g wh et her t h e s u p eri or co u rt erred i n rev ers i n g t h e Ap p el l at e

Di v is i o n

, we m

u s t co ns i der wh et h er t h e Ap pel l at e D i vi s i o n co rrect l y ap p li ed t h e l aw,

an d wh et h er t h e reco rd es t ab l i s h es s o m e ev i d en ce th at J o h n s on ’ s k n ee i n ju ry was n ot

co m p en s ab l e b ecau s e i t d id n o t ari s e o ut o f h er em pl o y m en t. S

ee Ch a mb er

s v.

Mo n r o e Ct

y. Bd

. o f Co mm’r

s

, 3 2 8 Ga. Ap p

. 4 0 3

, 4 0 3 -4 0 4 (7 6 2 SE2 d 1 3 3 ) (2 0 1 4 ).

“ Th e l e g a l s t an d ard g ov ern i n g wh et h er an i n j u ry ari s es o u t o f em

p l o y m en t i s wel l

es t ab l i s h ed .” Id

. at 4 0 4

.

3 2 6 9 Ga. Ap p . 3 3 9 (6 0 6 SE2 d 5 6 7 ) (2 0 0 4 ).

4 3 0 0 Ga. Ap p . 8 4 5 (6 8 6 SE2 d 4 4 3 ) (2 0 0 9 ).

8Fo r an acci d en t al i n ju ry t o ari s e o u t o f t h e em p l o y m en t t here m

u s t be

s o m e cau s al c o n n e c t io n b et ween t h e co n d i t i o n s u n d er w hi ch th e

em p l o y ee w o rk ed an d t h e in ju ry wh ich [s ] he recei v ed

. Th e cau s at iv e

d an g er m us t b e i n ci d en t al to t h e c h aract er o f t he em p l o y m en t

, an d n o t

i n d ep en d en t o f t h e rel at i o n o f m as ter an d s erv an t

. Th e acci d en t m u s t be

o n e res u l t i ng fro m a ri s k reas o n ab ly i n ci d en t t o t h e em p l o y m en t

. An d a

ri sk is i n ci d en t to t he em p l o y m en t wh en i t bel o n g s to

, o r i s co n n ect ed

wi t h

, wh at a w o rk m an h as t o d o i n fu lfi l l i n g h i s co n t ract o f s erv i ce. An

i n ju ry ari ses o u t of t h e em p l o y m en t w h en a reas o n a b l e p ers o n

, aft er

c o n s i d eri n g th e ci rcu m s t an ces o f t h e em p l o y m en t

, wo ul d p ercei v e a

cau s al co n nect i o n b et ween t h e co n d it i o n s u n d er wh i c h t h e em pl oy ee

m u s t wo rk an d t he res u l t i n g i n ju ry

.

Ch a p a r r a l Bo at s , In c.

, 2 6 9 Ga. Ap p . at 3 4 0 -4 1 (ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed ). Bu t

[w] h ere th e i n

j u ry w o ul d h av e o ccu rred reg a r d l e s s o f wh ere th e

em p l o y ee was req u ired t o b e l o cat ed

, an d res ul t s fro m a r i s k to wh ich

t h e em pl oy ee wo u l d h av e b een eq u al l y ex p o sed ap art fro m an y

co n d i t i o n o f t h e em

p l o y m en t

, t h ere i s n o b as i s fo r fi nd i n g a cau s al

co n n ect i o n b et ween t h e em p l o y m en t an d t he i n

ju ry

, an d no b as i s f

o r

co m p en s at i o n u n der t h e p o s i t i o n al ri sk do ct ri n e. Th e gen eral r u le s t i l l

ap p l ies t h at t h e i n

j u ry do es n o t ari s e o u t o f t h e em p l o y m en t wh ere th e

cau s at i v e d an g er i s n ot p ecu l i ar t o t he wo rk i n a w a y t h at cau s al l y

co n n ect s t h e em

p lo y m en t t o t he i n

ju ry

.

Id

. at 3 4 3 (ci tat i o n s o m it t ed ). “ Th e o p erat iv e q u es ti o n i s wh et h er t h e cl ai m an t

p erfo rm ed t h e act iv i t y

i n fu rt h eran ce o f h er jo b d u t i es , an d t h i s i s a q ues t i o n o f fact

9t h at i s co m

m it ted t o t h e fact -fi n d er at t h e ad m i ni s t rat i v e l ev el .” Ch a mb er s , 3 2 8 Ga.

Ap p

. at 4 0 6 (ci t i ng Ha r r i s v. Pea ch Ct y. Bd

. o f Co m m’r s

, 2 9 6 Ga. Ap p

. 2 2 5

, 2 2 8 (6 7 4

S E 2 d 3 6 ) ( 20 09 ). “ Th e cl ai m an t carri es t h e b u rd en o f es tab l i s h i ng cau s at i o n.”

H u g h s t o n Or t h o

p ed i c Ho s

p. v. W i l s o n

, 30 6 Ga. Ap p

. 8 93

, 89 5 (1 ) (7 0 3 SE2 d 1 7 )

(2 0 1 0) (ci t at i o n o m i t ted ). W e defer t o t he fact u al fi n d i n g s o f t h e Bo ard wh ere t h ere

i s an y ev i d en ce t o s u pp o rt i t

. Ch a mb er s

, 3 2 8 Ga. Ap p. a t 4 0 7 ( “ I t h as b een s o

rep eat ed l y hel d t h at wh ere t here i s an y co m p et en t ev i d en ce t o s u s t ai n a fi n d i n g b y t h e

b o ard s u ch fi n di n g i s co n cl us i ve an d b i n d i n g o n a rev i ewi n g co urt

, t h at n o ci t at i on s

are d eem ed n eces s ary .” (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed )). Nei t h er t h e s u p eri o r co u rt no r t h i s Co u rt

m ay su b s t i t u t e i t s j ud gm en t fo r t h at o f t h e Bo ard w i t h res p ect t o t he d et erm i n at i o n o f

t h e fact ual cau se o f a cl ai m an t’ s i n ju ry

. Id

. “ To h o l d o t herwi s e wo u l d wo rk a d ram at i c

al t erat i o n i n o u r l o n g

- s t a n d i n g ‘ an y ev i d en ce’ ru le i n t hi s reg ard

. ” Id

. W h i l e

co n cl u s i v e i f s u p p o rt ed b y an y ev i den ce, su ch fact ual det erm in at io n s are n o t i m m u n e

fro m a l eg al rev iew co ncern i n g t h e ap p l i cab i l i t y o f t h e l aw t o t h e fact s

.

“ [T] h e fact -fi nd in g b o d y m u st in each cas e r e m a i n t h e fi n al arb i t er o f t h e

co m p en s ab i l i t y of t h e in

j u ry an d o f wh et h er t h e cl ai m an t ’ s d i sab i l i t y aro s e o u t o f t h e

10em

pl o y m en t as wel l as in t h e co u rs e o f i t ,” 5 an d we ag ree t h at i n t h i s cas e t h e s u p eri o r

co u rt d i d n o t s u ffi ci en t l y d efer t o the f a c t- fi n di ng o f th e Ap p el l at e Di v is i on

. H o wev er,

t h i s d o es n o t en d o u r i n q u i ry

. It rem ai n s t h e res po n s i b i l i t y o f t h i s Co u rt t o rev i ew t h e

l eg al fram ewo r k w i t h i n wh i ch t h e fact -fi n d er op erat ed

, an d t h us t o d efi n e wh at

“ ari s i n g o u t o f” em

p lo y m en t m ean s as a m at t er o f l aw.

Here, t h e Ap p el l at e D i v i s i o n s et fo rt h t h e ab ov e referen ced leg al s t an d ard

reg ard i n g cau s at i on i n i t s o rd er. Ho wev er, i t erred i n it s an al y s is wi t h res p ect t o t h e

l eg al fram ewo rk fo r det erm i n i n g wh et h er an i nju ry a r i s e s o u t o f em p l o y m en t

, an d

rel at ed ly

, i t s d et erm i n at io n o f wh at co n st i tu t es an i d io p at h i c i n ju ry . In i t s o rd er, t h e

Ap p el l at e Di vi s i o n fo u n d t h at J o h n s o n ’ s act o f “ t u rn i n g an d wal k i ng was n o t a ri s k

u n i q u e” o r p ecu l i ar to h er wo rk

, an d w a s “ a ri s k to wh i ch sh e wo u l d hav e b een

eq u al l y ex p o s ed ap art fro m t h e em p l o y m en t ,” an d t h at t herefo re h er i n ju ry res u l t ed

fro m an “ i d i o p at h i c fal l ” an d was n o t co m p en s ab l e.

In s o h o ld i n g

, it ap p ears t h at t h e Ap p el lat e Di v i s i o n fel l prey t o t h e co n fu s i o n

t h at o ur cas e l aw h as s o wn

. As a p rel i m i n ary m at t er, i n co n s i d eri n g wh et h er an i n ju ry

5 Ha r ri s

, 2 9 6 G a. Ap p

. at 2 2 9 (ci tat i o n an d p u nct u at i o n o m i t t ed ). S ee a l s o

Ch a mb er s

, 3 2 8 Ga. Ap p

. at 4 0 7 (d eferri n g t o fact -fi n d i n g b o dy ’s d et erm i n at i o n o f

wh et h er i n

ju ry had a cau sal co n n ect i on t o em p lo y m en t an d t h erefo re was

co m p en s ab l e).

11aro s e o u t o f em p l o y m en t

, t h e fo cu s s h o u l d b e o n t h e cau sal l i nk b et ween t he i n ju ry

an d t h e em

p lo y ee’ s w o r k -rel at ed co nd i t io n s or act i vi t y

. S ee Hen nl y v. Ri ch a r d

s o n

,

2 6 4 Ga. 3 5 5, 3 5 6 (1 ) (4 4 4 SE2 d 3 1 7 ) (1 9 9 4 ); Fr i ed v. U.S

. Fi d

. & Gu a r

. Co

. , 1 9 2 Ga.

4 9 2

, 49 5 -4 9 6 (1 5 SE2 d 7 04 ) (1 9 4 1 ); Ch a p a r r a l Bo a t

s

, 2 6 9 G a. A p p

. at 34 0 -4 1 ; Da vi s

v. Ho u s t o n G e n

. In s

. Co

. , 1 4 1 Ga. Ap p. 38 5

, 3 86 (2 3 3 SE2 d 4 7 9) (1 9 77 ); Bo r d en

Fo o ds Co . v. Do r

s ey , 1 1 2 Ga. Ap p. 8 3 8 , 8 39 (3 ) (1 4 6 SE2 d 5 32 ) (1 9 6 5 ). 6

Bu t w h ere t h e Ap p el lat e Di v i s i o n erred

, d u e i n l arg e part t o t h e q u ag m i re in

t h i s area o f t h e l aw, i s i n i n t erp ret i n g an d ap p l y i n g w h at t h e Geo rg ia Su prem e Co u rt

an d o ur Co u rt h av e m ean t i n h o l d i n g t h at i n j uri es d o no t ari se o u t o f em p l o y m en t

wh ere t h ey “ can n ot fai rl y b e t r aced t o t h e em p l o y m en t as a co n t ri b u t i n g p ro x i m at e

cau s e, an d wh i ch co mes f r o m a h a z a rd t o wh i c h t h e wo rkmen wo ul d h a ve b een

eq u al l y exp o s ed ap a r t

f r o m emp l o

ymen t .” Fr i ed

, 1 92 Ga. at 4 9 5 (em ph as i s s u p p l i ed ).

S ee al s o Ch a mb er

s

, 3 2 8 Ga. Ap p

. at 4 0 4 -4 0 5 ; Ch a p a r r a l Bo a t

s

, 2 6 9 Ga. A pp

. at 3 4 3

-

3 4 6

.

Th e Ap pel l at e Di v i s i o n o v erl o o k ed t h e p ro x i m at e cau s e req u i rem e n t an d

fo cu s ed o n t he co n cep t o f e q u al ex po s ure, i n terp ret i n g i t t o m ean th at b ecau s e

6 Bo rd en was o v erru l ed b y Jo h n s o n v. Pu b l i x S u p er ma r ket s

, 2 5 6 Ga. Ap p

. 5 4 0

, 5 4 1 -4 2 (5 6 8 SE2 d 8 2 7 ) (2 0 02 ), wh i ch was l at er d i s ap p ro v ed o f b y Ch a pa r ra l Bo at

s

, In c. , 2 6 9 Ga. Ap p . at 3 4 6 -3 4 7

.

12J o h n so n co u l d h av e fal len o u t s i d e o f wo rk wh i l e wal k in g an d t urn i n g, as s h e d id

wh i le sh e was at w o r

k

, a n d n o t h i n g p art i cu l ar ab o u t t h e cl as sro o m ap p ears t o h av e

c a u s e d t h e f

a l l, 7 t h at h er i n

ju ry res u l ted fro m an i d i o pat h i c fal l an d i s n ot

co m p en s ab l e. Bu t ju st b ecau s e an em p l o y ee co u l d t h e o r et i cal l y b e ex p os ed t o a

h azard o u t s i d e o f wo rk t hat m i rro rs t h at wh i ch h e o r sh e m u s t face wh i l e at wo rk d o es

n o t ren d er an i n

ju ry res u l t i n g fro m t h at w o rk p lace h azard no n -co m

pen s ab l e. See

Ha r ri s

, 2 9 6 G a

. A p p

. at 2 3 0

. To h o l d o t h erwi s e wo u l d ren d er v irt u al ly an y cas e in

wh i ch an em

pl o y ee i s w al k i n g

, t u rn i n g

, o r st an d in g (o r so m e co m b i n at i o n o f t h es e

act i vi t i es ) wh i l e p erfo rm i n g h i s o r h er jo b n o n -co m p en s ab l e. T h us

, t o t h e ex t en t t h at

S t

. Jo sep h’s Ho s

p

. v. W a r d

, 3 0 0 Ga. Ap p

. 8 4 5

, 8 4 8 (1 ) (6 8 6 SE2 d 4 4 3 ) (2 0 0 9 ) h o l d s

t h at an act i v i t y

i s n o t co m

p en s ab l e b ecau s e an em

p l o y ee co u l d h av e en g ag ed i n t h e

act i vi t y g i v i ng ri s e t o t he i n

ju ry o u t s i d e o f wo rk

, 8 i t m

us t b e an d i s o v erru l ed

.

7 J o h n so n d is p ut es t h i s an d arg u es t hat h er k n ee in ju ry res u l t ed fro m h er h av i n g

t o w eav e t h ro u g h th e t i g h t cl as s ro o m co nfi g u rat i o n at a rap i d p ace. Th e reco rd s h o ws

t h at J o h n s o n t es ti fi ed t h at s he was h urry i n g aro u n d h er cl as s ro o m

wh i l e i ns t ru ct i n g

t h e ch i l d ren t h at d ay

, an d t h at s h e fel l wh i l e n av i g at i n g h er way b et ween th e co rn er

o f h er d es k an d t h e t ab l e t h at was ri g h t n ex t t o it

. Bu t, w e m us t accep t t he Ap p el l at e

Di v is i o n ’ s fact u al d et erm i n at i on o n t h i s p art

.

8 In S t

. Jo s ep h’s Ho s

p i t a l

, t h i s Co urt o p i n ed t h at a nu rs e’ s k n ee i n ju ry t h at s h e

s u s t ai n ed wh i l e t u rn i n g t o g et a p at i en t s o m e wat er was n o t c o m p en s ab l e b ecau s e

“ s t an d i ng an d t u rn i n g ” were n o t ri s k s u n i q u e t o h er em p l o y m en t

. 3 0 0 Ga. Ap p

. at

8 4 6 , 8 4 8 (1 ).

13Rat h er, t o b e a co m p en s ab l e i n

ju ry th at ari ses o u t o f em p lo y m en t

, t h e i n

ju ry

m u st ei t h er b e cau s ed by act i v it y t h e em p l o y ee en g ag ed in as p art o f h i s o r h er jo b,

o r th e i n ju ry m us t res u lt fro m s om e “ s p eci al d an g er o f t h e em p l o y m en t [.] ” 9 U.S

. Ca s

.

Co

. v. Ri ch a rd

s o n

, 7 5 Ga. Ap p

. 4 9 6

, 4 9 9 (2 ) (4 3 SE2 d 79 3 ) (1 94 7 ) ( em p l o y ee

s u ffered a s ei zu re an d t h en s t ru ck h i s h ead on a s h arp co rn er of a t ab l e p res en t i n t h e

wo rk p l ace, cau s in g a s k ul l fract u re an d brai n i n ju ry

, wh i ch was c o m

p en s ab l e). See

a l s o Ha r r i s

, 2 9 6 G a

. Ap p

. at 2 2 8 -2 3 0 (em pl o y ee was carry i n g o ut j o b d u t i es wh en

s h e b en t o v er t o p i ck u p a p i l l an d i n ju red h er k nee). Co mp a r e M u r p h y v. ARA S

er vs

.,

In c.

, 1 6 4 Ga. Ap p. 8 5 9

, 8 6 1 -8 6 3 (2 9 8 SE2 d 5 2 8 ) (1 9 8 2 ) (as s au l t in t h e wo rk p l ace d id

n o t ari s e ou t o f em

p lo y m en t wh ere i t d i d n o t ari s e o v er an y wo rk -rel at ed d i s p u t e an d

co n di t i o n s were n o t s uch t h at t h ey i n creas ed t h e ri s k of at t ack ); Da vi s

, 1 4 1 G a. Ap p.

at 3 8 5-8 7 (n o ev i d en ce t h at back i nju ry s u s t ai n ed w h i l e p u t t i n g o n a co at “ was rel at ed

i n an y way t o o r cau s ed by t h e pecu l iar n at u re o f h er d u t i es ”). T h at i s

, th e act i v i ty o r

h azard res u l t i n g i n i n

ju ry m u s t b e “ i nci d en t al t o t h e ch aract er o f t h e b u s i nes s

, an d n ot

i n d ep en den t o f t he rel at io n o f m as t er an d s erv an t .” Fr i ed , 1 9 2 Ga. at 4 95

.

9 Fo r ex am

p l e, wi t h res p ect to t h e po s i t i on al ri s k d o ct ri n e, an i n ju ry m ay ari s e

o u t o f em p l o y m en t i f a d u t y rel at ed to t h e em p l oy m en t p l a c e d t h e em

p l o y ee i n a

l o cal e wh i ch ex p o s ed t he em pl oy ee t o a co m

m o n ri s k

. See Ch a

p a r r a l B o a t

s

, In c.

, 2 6 9

Ga. Ap p . at 3 4 1 -4 3

.

14Fo r e x a m p l e, i n Ch a

p ar r a l Bo a t

s

, th e em p lo y ee’ s k n ee i n

ju ry s he s u s t ai n ed

wh i le w al k i n g acro s s c o m p an y p ro p ert y t o “ cl o ck i n ” d i d n ot ari s e o u t o f h er wo rk

an d was n o t co m

pen s ab l e b e c au s e th e i n

ju ry d i d n o t ari s e fro m h er en g ag em en t in

act i vi t y req u i red fo r her wo r k

, a n d t h e i n ju ry d i d n o t res u l t fro m a s li p

, tri p

, fal l

, o r

co n tact w i th an y h azard o f h er wo rk p l ace. 2 6 9 Ga. Ap p

. a t 3 3 9

, 3 4 4 (1 ). Acco r d

Bo r den Fo o d

s

, 1 1 2 Ga. Ap p . at 8 3 9 -8 4 0 (4 ).

Fu rt her, an i n

ju ry th at o ccu rs i n t h e wo rk p l ace b u t i s i d i o p at hi c

— m ean i n g t h at

t h e i n ju ry i s “ p ecu l i ar t o t h e i n d i v i d u al o r ari s es [s ] s p o n t an eo u s l y o r fro m an o b s cu re

o r u n kn o wn cau s e” 1 0

— an d h as n o cau sal co n n ect i o n t o wo rk p l ace act i v i t y o r

c o n d i t i o n s

, w o u l d n ot fal l wi t h i n t h e sco p e o f t h e W o rk ers ’ Co m p en s at i o n A c t

.

Rat h er, in t h i s co n tex t

, i d i o p at h y i s u s ed t o d es c r i b e i n j u r i es s u s t ai n ed at w o rk t h at

are u n rel at ed t o

, o r d o n o t o ccu r wh i l e en g ag ed i n

, w o rk

. Here, t h e u n d i s p u t ed fact s

as fo u n d b y b o t h t h e ALJ an d Ap p el l at e Di v is i on rev eal t h at J o h n s o n was act i v el y

en g ag ed i n t h e m o vem en t s an d b eh av i o rs req u i red o f h er as a cl as s ro o m teach er wh en

s h e was i n

ju red as a res ul t o f o n e o r m o re o f th o s e m o v e m e n t s

. T h i s i s n o t an

i d i o p at h i c i n

ju ry

.

1 0 S t u r g es s v. OA Lo g i s t i cs S

er vs

., In c.

, 3 3 6 Ga. Ap p. 1 3 4

, 1 3 8 n

. 1 1 (7 8 4 SE2 d

4 3 2 ) (2 0 1 6 ) (ci t at i o n an d p u nct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

15Th u s

, b ecau s e t h e Ap p el l at e Di v is io n m i s co ns t ru ed t h e l e g a l f r a m ewo rk fo r

d et erm i n i n g wh et h er an i n ju ry aro s e o u t o f em

p l o y m en t an d t herefo re ren d ered a

d eci s i o n co n t rary t o l aw, t he s u p eri o r co u rt was au t h o ri zed to set as i d e t h e Ap p el l at e

Di v is i o n ’ s d eci si o n

. S

ee OCGA § 3 4 -9 -1 0 5 (c) (5 ).

Ju d g men t a f f i r med

. Br a n ch

, J., co n cu r s

. M c Fa d d en

, P. J., co n cu r

s f u l l y a n d

s p eci a l l y.

16A1 7 A 1 4 6 9

. CARTERSVILLE CITY SCHOOLS et al

. v

.

J OHNSON.

M C F A D D E N , Pres id i n g J u d g e, co n cu rri n g fu l l y an d s p eci al l y

.

I wri t e s ep arat el y b ecau s e t h e m ajo ri ty ci tes Ch a mb er s v. Mo n r o e Co u n t

y Bd

.

o f Co mm’r

s

, 3 2 8 Ga. A pp

. 4 0 3 ) ( 7 6 2 SE2 d 1 33 ) (2 01 4 ). Cert ai n l an g u ag e in

C h a mb er s i s i n co n fl i ct wi t h wel l -es t ab l i s h ed s t an dard s o f rev i ew i n wo rk ers ’

co m p en s at i o n cas es

. I am ab l e t o co n cu r fu l l y b ecau se th e m ajo ri t y d o es n o t rel y o n

t h e i n co r r e c t l a n g u ag e i n Ch a mb er s

. Bu t m y fu l l co ncu rren ce i s su b ject t o t h e

q u al i fi cat i o n t h at t h i s o p i n i o n m ay n o t b e ci t ed as an en d o r s em en t o f t h at i n co rrect

l an g u ag e. See Co u rt o f Ap p eal s Ru l e 3 3.2

.

In Ch amb er

s

, t h i s co u rt hel d “ t h at t h e s up eri o r co u rt s (an d t h i s co u rt ) m ay n ot

s u b s t i t u t e t h ei r ju d g m en t fo r t h a t of t h e [Ap pel l at e Di v i s i o n o f t h e St at e Bo ard o f

W o r k e r s ’ C o m

p en sat i on ] o n th e q u es t i o n of wh et h er an i n ju ry aro se o u t o f t h ecl ai m an t ’ s em pl o y m en t. To h o ld o t h erwi s e wo ul d wo rk a d ram at i c al t erat io n i n o u r

l o n g -s t an d i n g ‘ an y ev i d en ce’ ru l e i n t h i s reg ard .” Id

. at 4 0 7

. To th e ex t en t t h i s

l an g u ag e s ug g es t s th at t h i s co u rt m ay no t co n d u ct a d e n o v o rev i ew o f t he b o ard ’ s

ap p li cat io n o f th e l aw to u n d i sp u t ed fact s o n t h e i s s u e o f wh et h er an i n j u ry aro s e o ut

o f a cl ai m an t ’ s em

p l o y m en t

, i t i s i n co n fl i ct wi t h s et tl ed cas e l aw s e t t i n g fo rt h t h e

s t an d ard s o f rev iew i n s u ch cas es

.

Th e ju d i ci al s t an d ard s o f rev i ew go v ern i n g wo rk ers ’ co m p en s at i o n cas es are

wel l -es tab l i s h ed

.

In rev i ewi n g a wo rk ers ’ co m p en sat i o n b en efi ts award

, b o th t hi s [c] o u rt

an d t h e s u p er i o r c o u r t m u s t co n s tru e t h e ev i d en ce in a li g h t m o s t

fav o rab le t o t h e p art y wh i ch p rev ai l ed b efo re th e [b ] o ard

. It is ax i o m at i c

t h at t h e fi n d i n gs o f t h e [b o a r d ], w h en s u p po rt ed b y an y ev i d en ce, are

co n cl u s i v e an d b i n di ng

, an d t h at n ei th er t he s up eri o r co u rt n o r t h i s co u rt

h as an y au t ho ri t y t o s u bs t i t u t e i t s el f as a fact fi n d i n g bo d y i n l i eu o f th e

[b ] o ard

. Ho wever

, we r evi ew d

e n ovo er r on eo u s ap

p l i ca t i o n s o

f l aw t o

u n d i s p ut ed f a ct s

, a s we l l a s d

eci s i o n s b as ed on er r o n eo us t h eo r ies o f

l a w

.

S a n ch ez v. Ca r t er

, 34 3 Ga. Ap p

. 1 87 (_

__ SE2 d

_

_ _) (2 0 1 7 ) ( c i t a t i o n s a n d

p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ; em

p has is s u p p li ed ). Acco rd B ra s h er v. US Xp r es s En t er s

. , 3 2 8

Ga. Ap p

. 2 0

, 2 1 (7 6 1 SE2 d 4 4 8 ) (2 0 1 4); Her i t a g e Hea l t h ca r e v. Ayer s

, 3 2 3 Ga. Ap p.

1 7 2 , 1 7 2 -1 7 4 (7 4 6 SE2 d 7 4 4 ) (2 0 1 3 ).

2“ Th e i s s u e o f wh et h er an i n ju ry ari s es o u t o f an d i n th e co u rs e o f em p l o y m en t

an d s o i s co m

p en s ab l e u n der t he wo rk ers ’ co m p en s at io n l aw i s a m i x ed q u es t i o n o f

fact an d l aw. Th e fi n der o f fact m u s t fi rs t h ear al l t h e rel ev an t ev i d en ce co n cern i n g

t h e in ju ry an d

, aft er fi n d i n g t h e fact s wi th reg ard t h eret o, ren der a co n cl u s i o n o f l aw

o n wh et h er i t was jo b -rel at ed .” La vi ne v. Amer ica n In s

. Co

. , 1 7 9 Ga. A p p

. 89 8

, 9 0 0

(3 4 8 SE2 d 1 1 4 ) (1 9 8 6 ) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at io n o m i t t ed ). Acco rd Bl a i r v. Geo r g ia

Ba p ti s t Ch i l dr en ’s Ho me & Fa mi l y Mi n i s t r i es

, 1 8 9 Ga. A p p

. 5 7 9 (3 7 7 SE2 d 2 1 )

(1 9 8 8); Kn i

g ht v. Go n z a l ez

, 18 1 Ga. Ap p

. 46 8

, 4 6 9 ( 3 5 2 SE2 d 6 4 6 ) (1 98 7 ); Ut z v.

Po wel l

, 16 0 Ga. Ap p. 8 8 8

, 8 8 9 (1 ) (2 8 8 SE2 d 6 0 1 ) (1 98 2 ). See al s o Hen n l y v.

Ri ch a r ds o n , 2 6 4 Ga. 3 5 5, 3 5 8 (4 4 4 SE2 d 3 1 7) (1 99 4 ) (d i s s en t ). Bu t “ wh ere

. . . t h e

fact s i n a wo rk m en ’ s co m p en s at i o n cas e are u nd i s p u t ed

, wh et h er t h e i n ju ry aro s e o ut

o f an d i n t h e co u rs e of em p l o y m e n t i s a q u es ti on o f l aw.” Pa r ker v. Tr a vel er

s In s

.

Co

. , 1 42 Ga. Ap p

. 7 1 1, 7 1 2 (1 ) (2 3 6 SE2 d 9 1 5 ) (1 9 7 7 ) (ci t at i o n a n d p u n c t u at i o n

o m it t ed ). Acco rd Th o r n t o n v. Ha r t f o r d Acc. & c. Co

. , 1 9 8 G a. 78 6

, 79 5 (3 2 SE2 d 8 1 6 )

(1 9 4 5) (“ Th e fact s b ei n g u n d i s p u t ed

, wh et h er t h e i n j u ry aro s e o u t o f an d i n t h e co u rs e

o f t h e em p l o y m en t i s a q ues ti o n o f l aw[

. ] ”); Lee v. Sea r s

, 2 2 3 Ga. Ap p

. 8 9 7 (4 7 9

SE2 d 1 9 6 ) (1 99 6 ) (“ W h et her an i n ju ry ari s es o u t o f an d i n t h e co u rs e o f em p l o y m en t

3i s g en eral l y

a m i x ed q ues t i on o f

l aw an d fact

. Bu t wh ere, as h ere, t h e m at eri al fact s

are n o t i n d i sp u t e, t h at i s s ue m ay b e d et erm i n ed as a m at t er o f l aw.”).

So i n a cas e l i k e t hi s o ne, wh ere t h e d i s p o s i t i v e fact s are u n di s p u t ed an d t hu s

t h e i ss u e o f wh et h er an i n ju ry a r o s e o u t of an d i n th e co u rs e o f em p l o y m en t i s a

q u es ti o n o f l aw, u n d er t h e wel l -es t ab li s h ed s t an d a rd s o f rev i ew reci t ed ab o v e, t h i s

co u rt i s req u i red to co nd u c t a d e n o v o rev i ew o f t h e b o ard ’ s d eci s i o n t o d et erm i n e

wh et h er t h ere h ad b een an erro n eo u s ap p l i cat i o n o f t he l aw t o t h o s e u n d i s p u t ed fact s

.

To t h e ex t en t th at Ch a mb er s

, s u p ra, can b e r ead t o su g g es t t h at t hi s Co u rt i s b o u n d

t o u ph o ld t h e b o ard ’ s d eci s io n i n s u ch a c a s e u n d e r t h e an y ev id en ce ru l e, i t i s

i n co rrect u n der o u r wel l -es tab l i s h ed cas e l aw.

Nev ert h el es s

, as n o t ed ab o v e, th e m ajo ri t y i n t hi s cas e d o es n ot rel y o n t h e

i n co rrect l an g u ag e i n Ch a mb er s . So I co n cu r fu l l y

.

4