FI FTH DI VI SI ON M CFA DDEN, P. J. , BROWN and M A R K LE, JJ.

N O T IC E : M o tions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be phy s ic a lly 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.

https ://w w w

. ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

Januar y 10, 2024



# In t he C ourt o f A ppe a ls o f G e o r g ia

A 23A 129 8. W ELLPA TH , LLC v

. COX.

B R O W N , J ud ge.
J o sep h Co x su ed H e a t h e r L a wr e n z a n d We l l P a t h, LLC, fo r inj u ries he su stained

w hen L aw renz alleged ly c o llid ed w ith a v ehic le d riv en b y Co x. Co x a lleged that

Law renz w as ac t ing w i t h i n t h e sc o p e o f her emp lo yment at the time o f t he c o llisio n

and that W ellPath w as theref o re liable u nd er the theo ry o f r esp o nd eat su p erio r. The

trial co urt d enied W ellPath’ s mo tio n to withd raw its ad missio ns a nd gra n te d Co x’ s

mo tio n f o r p artial su mmary j ud gment o n the issu e of resp o nd eat su p erio r. W ellPath

a p p e a l s these ru lings, c o ntend ing that (1 ) there is a genu ine issu e o f m aterial f ac t a s

to w hether Law renz w as an emp lo y ee o r ind ep end ent c o ntra c to r and (2) the trial c o urterred in d enying W ellPath’ s mo t i o n t o w ithd raw its ad missio ns. 1 Fo r the reaso ns

exp lained belo w , w e (1 ) rev erse the d enial of the mo tio n to w ithd r aw and remand f o r

the trial c o urt to rec o nsi d er its ru ling, and (2) rev erse t he grant o f p artial su mmary
j u d gment to Co x.

Su mmary j u d gment is p ro p er when t here is n o g enu ine issu e o f material f a c t and the mo v ant is entitled to ju d gment as a matter of law

. W e a p p ly a de no v o stand ard o f rev iew to a n a p p eal f ro m a grant o r d enial o f su mmary j u d gment, and we v iew the ev id enc e , a nd all

reaso nable c onc lu sio ns a nd inf erenc es d r aw n f

r o m it, in the light mo st f av o rable to the no nmo v ant.

(Citatio ns and p u nc tu atio n o m itted

. ) Au gu s ta C hro n i cle v

. W o o d a ll , 36 0 Ga. A p p

. 5 7 6
(859 SE2d 6 1 7 ) (2021 ). V iew ed in the light mo st fav o rable to W ellPath, the

no nmo v ing p a rty, the ev id e nc e sho w s that Law renz , a resid ent o f So u th Caro lina, w as

u nd er c o ntrac t as an “ ambassad o r” f o r W ellPath, w h i c h had a c o ntrac t t o p ro v id e

med ic al c are to p riso ns in the State o f G eo rgia. Law renz w as task e d w ith assisting

p riso n health serv ic e ad ministrato rs w ith the transitio n o v er to WellPath. A c c o rd ing

to L aw renz , tho se p riso ns inc lu d ed D o o ly, Pu lask i, W ilc o x, Ru tled ge, and B ainbrid ge

1 W e are no t persu a d ed by Co x’ s c o n t e n t i o n that WellPath a b and o ned this

enu meratio n.

2Co rrec tio nal, and she w as “ a c o ntrac to r that c ame in to assist [the p riso ns] w ith the

transitio n” and also help the p r i s o n s prep are f or u p c o m ing au d its by the A meric an

Co rrec tio nal A sso c iatio n. 2

On D ec ember 1 4, 2021 , Law renz stayed in a ho tel in B a inbrid ge. A t

ap p r o x i m ately 6: 10 a. m. o n D ec ember 1 5, 2021 , Law renz w as d riv ing in her o w n

v ehic le f ro m her ho tel to either Pu lask i o r D o o ly p riso n, when she c o llid ed with Co x’ s

v ehic le. At the time of the c o llisio n, Law renz w a s o n the pho ne w ith her hu sband ;

Law renz ’s c ar was equ ip p ed w ith Blu et o o t h and her p ho ne w ou ld hav e been

c o nnec ted to the B lu e to o th. Co x su stained s erio u s i n j u ries and su bsequ ently f iled a

c o mp laint against Law r enz o n Febru ary 3, 2022.

Pro cedu ra l Fa cts

I n her resp o nse to Co x’ s requ ests f or ad mi s s io n, f

iled on A p ril 29 , 2022,

Law renz ad mitted that o n the d ate of the ac c id e n t, s he was a “ c o ntrac to r o f

W ellPath. ” Law renz w as d ep o sed o n A u gu st 26 , 2022. The o nly perso ns p resent f o r

the d ep o sitio n w ere Co x’ s atto rney, Law renz ’s atto rney, a nd the atto rney f o r the

2 D u ring her d e p o s i tio n, Co x’ s c o u nsel p r esented Law renz w ith her “I n d e p e n d e n t C o ntrac t or A greement,” d ated A u gu st 29 , 2021 , and ask ed her s p e ci f i c qu estio ns abo u t the w o rd ing o f the do c u ment and w ho a t W ellPath p resented it to her

o r w hether she had an atto rney d raw it u p

.

3u ninsu red mo to rist c arrier. On Sep tember 1 , 2022, Co x mo v ed to ad d WellPath as a

d ef end ant. The trial c ou rt granted the mo tio n, and o n Sep tember 9 , 2022, Co x f iled

an amend ed c o m p laint a d d i n g W ellPath as a d ef end ant and asserting that it w as

v ic ario u s ly liable f

o r L a wr e n z ’s a l l e g e d n e g ligenc e based o n the d o c trine o f r esp o nd e at

su p erio r. W e l lPath w as serv ed w ith the a mend ed c o mp laint and v ario u s d isc o v ery

requ ests (interro gato ries , requ ests f o r p ro d u c tio n o f d o c u ments, and requ ests f o r

ad missio n) o n Sep tember 20, 2022, bu t the p r o of o f serv ic e w as no t f iled u ntil Oc to ber

1 1 , 2022. 3 On N o v ember 8, 2022, C o x f i l ed a mo tio n f

o r p artial su mmary j u d gment

o n the v ic ario u s liability c laim, asserting e rro neo u sly that bec au se W ellPath had f ailed

to resp o nd timely to Co x’ s requ ests f o r ad m issio n, it ad mitted that at the time o f the

c o llisio n, Law renz “ w as a n e mp lo yee a nd /o r a gent o f D ef end ant W ellPath” and that

bec au se W ellPath retained the righ t to c o ntro l the time, manner, and m etho d o f

Law renz ’s w o rk , she w as no t an ind e p end e nt co ntrac to r. O n t he same d ay, the trial

c o u r t o rd ered a “ hearing o n all issu e s” fo r D ec ember 1 5, 2022, and mand ated th at

3 Pu rsu ant to OCGA § 9 -1 1

- 4 (h), “ [t]he p erso n serv ing the p ro c ess shall mak e p ro o f of su c h serv ic e w ith the c o u r t i n the c o u nty in w hic h the ac tio n is p end ing

w ithin f iv e bu siness d ays o f the serv ic e d a te. I f the p ro of o f serv ic e is no t filed w ithin f iv e bu siness d ays, t he time f o r the p arty serv ed to answ e r the p ro c e ss s hall no t begin
to ru n u ntil s u c h p ro o f o f serv ic e is f iled

. ” A c c o r d i n g l y, W ellPath’ s answ er and d isc ov ery resp onses w e re no t d u e u ntil N o vember 1 1 , 2022.

4W ellPath f

ile an answ er o r resp o nsiv e p lead ing w ithin 20 d a ys. 4 W ellPath f

i l e d a n

answ er and resp o nses t o the requ ests f o r ad missio n (“ RFA ” ) o n N o v ember 1 0, 2022.

RFA # 6 stated , “ P l e a se a d mit that at the time o f the D ec ember 1 5, 2021 c o llisio n

D ef e nd ant Law renz w as an emp lo yee a nd /o r agent o f D e f end ant W ellPath. ” I n

resp o nse, W e llPath stated , “ Admi tted

. ” I n its answ er, W ellPath also ad m itted that

Law renz w as an emp lo yee o n the d ate o f c o llisio n, bu t d enied t h a t she was ac ting

w ithin the c o u rse and sc op e o f her emp lo yment at the time o f the inc id e nt.

The trial c o u rt held a hearing o n t he mo tio n f o r p artial su mmary j ud gment o n

D ec ember 1 5, 2022. Law renz ’s d ep o sitio n w a s f iled w ith the trial co u rt o n Dec ember

30, 2022. On J a nu ary 5, 2023, the t r i a l c o u rt set a sec o nd hearing o n the mo tio n f o r

p artial s u mmary j u d gment, to be held o n J anu ary 1 6 , 2023. On Jan u a r y 1 3, 2023,

W ellPath f

iled a m otio n to withd raw RFA # 6 , c o ntend in g t h a t i t was u naw are that

Law renz w as an ind ep end ent c ontrac to r u ntil it rec eiv ed a c o py o f her d ep o sitio n and

d ep o sitio n exhibits on D ec ember 21 , 2022, a nd J anu ary 4, 2023, r esp ec tiv ely. I n

su p p o rt o f t he mo tio n, W ellPath f iled the af fid av it o f Law renz ’ s d irec t su p erv iso r at

4 I n a su bsequ e nt e- mail to the p arties, the trial c o urt no ted t h a t t he to lling p r o v isio ns o f OCGA § 9

- 1 1

- 4 (h) ap p lied to W ellPath’ s a nsw er and d i s c o v e r y resp o nses.

5W ellPath, w ho av erred that W ellPath hires ind ep end ent c o ntrac to rs su c h a s L aw renz

to assist it w ith the t ransitio n o f mu ltip le p r i s o n m ed ic al f ac ilities to W ellPath’ s

c o ntro l and that a t the time o f the c ollisio n, Law renz w as p ro v id ing serv ic es u nd er an

ind ep end ent c o ntrac to r agreement, and that W ellPath d id no t c o ntro l t he t i m e ,

manner, o r metho d o f Law renz ’ s c o ntrac tu a l d u ties. A c o p y o f t he ind ep end ent

c o ntrac to r agreement w as attach e d t o t h e af f id av it. On Janu ary 16 , 2023, the trial c o urt

held a sec o nd hearing, d u r ing whic h c o unsel f o r W ellPath e xp lained that it had no t

been a p arty to the c ase w hen Law renz ’ s d ep o sitio n w as t ak en and that his c lient had

been unable to lo c ate a c o p y o f the agreement; the o nly c op y o f the agreement in the

p o ssessio n o f WellPath o r its c o u nsel w as the o ne p ro d u c ed by Co x’ s c o u nsel d u ring

Law renz ’s d e p o sitio n. 5

5 A s W ellPath exp lained in its w ithd raw al mo tio n, W ellPath d id no t hav e a c o p y
o f , and w as u naw are of t h e s u b stanc e o f , Law renz ’s d ep o s itio n u ntil D ec e mber 21 , 2022, well af

ter W ellPath su b mitted its resp o nse to RFA # 6 ; “ [t]heref o re, W ellPath d id no t hav e the b e nef

it of

. . . Law renz ’ s f

u ll testimo ny at th e ti m e o f its initial resp o nse. ” W ellPath f

urther exp lained t hat it did no t hav e a c o p y o f , and w a s u naw are
o f the s u b s t a n ce o f, t h e ind ep end ent c o ntrac to r agreement u ntil J anu ary 4, 2023, w hen C o x ’s co unsel p ro vid ed W ellPath’ s c o unsel w ith t h e e x h i b i t s t o L a w r e n z ’s d e p o s i t i o n

. D u ring th e h e a ring, Co x’ s c o u nsel a d mitted that “[n]o t f iling [Law renz ’ s] d ep o sitio n” w a s his mistak e a nd “ [t]hat’ s j u st s o m ething that w e

. . . had t o p rev ent, f alls o n u s. I t w as j u st an o v ersight. ”

6On J anu ary 31 , 2023, the tri al co u rt entered an o rd er denying W ellPath’ s

mo tio n to w ithd raw its ad m issio n and granting Co x’ s mo tio n f o r p artial su mmary
j u d gment. A s to the f

o rmer mo tio n, the trial c ou rt essentially c o nc lu d ed that it w as no t

c red ible that W ellPath w as u naw are o f the ind ep end ent co ntrac to r agreement giv en

that the agreement w as p rep ared by W ellPath and p ro v id ed to Law renz f o r exec u tio n

and that the ev id enc e p ro f erred to o v ertu rn the a d missio n w as no t c red ible. A s to the

latter mo tio n, t he trial c ou r t c o nc lu d ed that based o n W ellPath’ s ad missio ns, at the

time o f the c o llisio n, Law renz w as ac ting a s an emp lo yee a nd /o r agent o f W ellPath and

w as ac ting within the sc o p e and c o u rse o f her emp lo yment, bu t that ev e n w itho u t the

ad missio ns, base d u p o n Law renz ’ s d ep o sitio n testimo ny, there w as ev id enc e that

W ellPath exerc ised c o ntro l o v er the t ime, m etho d, a nd manner of her w o rk su c h that

she sho u ld be c o nsid ered a n emp lo yee and no t an ind ep end ent c o ntrac to r, an d that

at the time o f the c o llisio n, Law renz w as ac t ing in the c o u rse and sc o p e o f her

emp lo yment w ith W ellPath. This ap p eal f ollo w ed

.

1

. W ellPath c o nt e n d s t hat the trial c o u rt erred in denying its mo tio n to

w ithd r aw its ad missio n. “ We rev iew the trial c o u rt’ s ru ling o n this issu e f or an abu se

7o f d isc retio n. ” (Citatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) C a rter v

. Vi s ta C a re , 335 Ga. A p p

.

6 1 6 , 6 23 (4) (a) (7 82 SE2d 6 7 8) (201 6 ).

OCGA § 9- 1 1

- 36 go verns requ ests f o r ad missio ns. I t p ro vid es that a party may

serv e up o n ano ther p arty a w ritten requ est f o r the ad missio n o f the tru th o f any matter

that is no t p riv ileged and is relev ant to the p end in g a c tio n. See OCGA § 9- 1 1

- 36 (a)
(1 ). See also OCGA § 9

- 1 1

- 26 (b) ( 1 ). “ Pu rsu ant to OCGA § 9

- 1 1

- 36 (b), any matter

ad mitted u nd er this Co d e sec tio n is c o nc lu siv e ly established u nl e ss t he c o u rt, o n

mo tio n, p ermits w ithd r a wa l o r a m e n d m e nt o f the a d missio n. ” (Pu nc tu atio n o mitted

. )

N j o ku v

. Adeyemi , 355 Ga. A p p

. 1 , 3 (1 ) (a) (8 4 2 S E 2 d 3 1 7 ) (2020). “There is a

tw o -p ro nge d te s t t o be emp lo yed w hen c o nsid ering a m o t io n to w ithd raw

ad missio ns. ” Fu lto n Co u n ty v

. S OC O Co n t ra cti n g C o. , 343 G a. A pp

. 889 , 89 7 (2) (a)
(808 SE2d 89 1 ) (201 7 ). “ A c ou rt may grant a mo tio n t o withd raw ( 1 ) w h e n the

p resentatio n o f the merits will be su b se r v e d t h e r e by and (2) the p arty o b taining the

ad missio n f

ails to satisf

y the c o u rt that the w ithd raw al will p rej u d ic e maintaining his

ac tio n o r d ef

ense o n the merits. ” (Citatio n and p u nc t u a t i o n o m itted

. ) C ro wther v

.

E sta te o f C ro wther , 258 Ga. A p p

. 49 8, 5 00 (1 ) (57 4 SE2d 6 07 ) ( 2002). See also Tu rn er

v

. Mi z e , 280 Ga. A p p

. 256 , 257 (1 ) (6 33 SE2d 6 41 ) (2006 ). “ I f the m ov ant satisf ies the

8c o u rt o n the f irst p r o ng, the bu r d en is o n t he r esp o nd ent t o satisf y the sec ond p ro ng.

B oth p ro ngs mu st be established

. . . . I f the mo v ant fails t o mak e the requ ired sho w ing

to satisf y the f irst p ro ng o f t he test, then the trial c o u rt is au tho r iz e d t o d eny the

mo tio n to w i thd raw the ad missio ns. ” (Citatio ns and pu nc t u atio n o m itted

. ) Fu lto n

C o u n ty , 343 Ga. A p p

. a t 89 7 (2) (a). “ To d emo nstrate that the merit s o f an ac tio n

w o u ld be serv ed by allo w ing w ithd r aw al o f a d missio ns, the mo v ing p arty mu st sho w

that the ad mitted requ es ts ei ther w ere ref utable by ad missible ev id enc e hav ing a

mo d ic u m o f c red ibility o r w ere inc red ible o n t heir f a c e , a n d that the d enial w as no t

o ffe r e d s o l e l y fo r t h e p u r p o s e s o f d elay. ” (Citatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted ; e mp has i s

su p p lied .) N

j oku , 355 Ga. A p p

. at 3 (1 ) (a).

I n its ord er p rep ared by Co x’ s c o unsel, t h e t r ial c o u rt f o u nd W ellPath’ s

argu ment that it was u naw are at the time it mad e its a d m issio n that Law renz had

exec u ted an ind e p e nd ent c o ntrac to r agreement “no t c red ible” bec au se W ellPath had

p rep a red t he c o ntrac to r agreement and p ro v id e d it to Law renz f o r exec u tio n. The trial

c o u rt also f

o u nd the ev id enc e su bmitted b y W ellPath “ in an attemp t to o v ertu rn the

ad missio n

. . . no t c red ible in light o f the testimo ny o f D ef end ant Law renz

. ” W ellPath

c o ntend s that these ru lings are erro neo u s bec au se (1 ) “ the ‘ c red ibility’ stand ard is no t

9w h e ther the reaso n p ro f erred f o r mak ing an e rro neo u s a d missio n is ad missi b l e i n a

trial c o u rt’ s su bj ec tiv e o p inio n” and (2) the agreement itself , Law renz ’ s d ep o sitio n

testimo ny, and L aw renz ’ s su p erv iso r’ s af fid a vit a re all c red ible ev id enc e su p p o rting

w ithd r aw al. Pretermitting w hether W ellPath’ s f irst a rgu ment is c o rrec t, w e c o nc lu d e

that the trial c o u rt e r r ed in f ind ing t hat there w as a c o mp lete a bsenc e o f ad missible

ev id enc e hav ing a mo d ic u m o f c red ibility.

The agreement p ro ferred by W ellPath in s u p p ort o f its mo tio n t o withd raw w as

exac tly the same agreement p resented by Co x’ s co u nsel and af f irmed by L aw renz

d u ring her d ep o s i t i o n , w here she rep eated ly testif ied t hat she w as a “ c o ntrac to r. ”

Und er these c irc u mstanc es, we f ail to see ho w the ev id e nc e su b mitted b y W ellPath

in su p p o r t o f its mo tio n w a s “no t cred ible in light o f the t e s t i m o n y o f D ef end ant

Law renz .” On the c o ntrary, Law renz ’ s testimo ny and the e vid enc e p resented by Co x

d u ring Law renz ’s d e p o s itio n d irec tly ref u te W ellPath’ s ad missio n. This ev id enc e

c o u p led w ith t he af

f id av it o f Law renz ’ s su p erv iso r attesting to t he existenc e and

v alid ity o f t h e i nd ep e nd ent co ntrac to r agreement a nd Law renz ’s statu s as an

ind ep end ent c ontrac t o r, 6 had the “ mo d ic u m o f c red ibility” requ ired t o establish the

6 Al tho u gh o n ap p eal, Co x attac k s the s u p erv iso r ’ s af f id av i t a s s e l f

- s e r v i n g , “t h e
rec o rd d o es no t r ef

lec t that [he] raised any obj ec tio n to the af f id av it in the trial c o urt

10f

irst- p ro ng o f t he test and w as no t “p er se inc red ible

. ” S e e Ba i ley v

. C ha s e Thi rd

C en t ury Lea s i n g C o

. , 21 1 Ga. A pp

. 6 0, 6 2 (1 ) (438 SE2d 1 7 2) (1 9 9 3).

This d o es no t, ho wev er, end o u r analysis. W hile the trial c o u rt co nsid ered and

ru led o n the f

irst p art o f the f

irst p ro ng, albeit erro neo u sly, it d id no t ru le o n the

sec o nd p art o f

the f irst p ro ng. 7 A c c o rd ingly, bec au se the trial c o u rt f ailed to ad d ress

t h e e n ti r ety o f the first p ro ng, w e rev erse the d enial of the mo tio n to withd raw a n d

remand t he c ase f

o r the trial c o u rt to rec o nsid er t he mo tio n. See C arter , 335 G a. A p p

.

at 6 25 ( 4) (a). See also S a

yers v

. Arti

s ti c Ki tchen D es i

gn , 280 Ga. A p p

. 223, 227 (2) (6 33

belo w ; theref

o re, any s u c h o bj ec tio ns are waiv ed

. ” Ma y v

. S

. E. GA Fo rd , 344 Ga. A p p

. 459 , 46 0, n. 2 (81 1 SE2d 1 4) (201 8).

7 I f the trial co u rt c o nc lu d es that WellPath has satisf ied its bu rd en as to the f

irst p ro ng, the t rial c o u rt mu s t then co nsid er ho w Co x w o u ld b e p rej u d ic ed in maintaining his ac tio n if w ithd raw al was allo w ed

. On this qu estio n, we no te that “the p u rp o s e o f requ ests f o r ad missio ns is to exp ed ite trial and c larif y the issu es in a case, no t gain
tac tic al ad v antage o ver an o p p o nent. ” (Citatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted .) S a yers v

. Arti sti c Ki tchen D es i

gn , 280 Ga. A p p

. 223, 226 (2) (6 33 SE2d 6 1 9 ) (2006 )

. See also Ri b ergla s s, In c

. v. EC O C

h em. S peci a lti es , 1 9 4 G a. A p p

. 41 7 , 41 9 (1 ) (b) (39 0 SE2d 6 1 6 ) (1 9 9 0) ( “[a]ny p a rty is c ertainly ‘ p rej u d ic ed ’ b y being fo rc ed to t r y a case rather than tak e , in ef

f ec t , a d ef

au lt, bu t he is no t p r e j u d i c e d i n trying t he merits o f the c ase,

w hic h is the qu estio n at issu e” ) (c itatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted ). H e re, a sid e f ro m argu ing that W ellPath “ k eep [s] mo v ing the go alp o st” o n an issu e that C o x h imself exp lo red w ith Law renz d u ring her dep ositio n, Co x d i d no t present o ther ev id enc e d u ring the hearing o n this qu estio n.

11SE2d 6 1 9 ) (2006 ); Mo o re Ven t u res Ltd. Pa rtn ers

h i p v

. S ta ck , 153 G a

. Ap p

. 2 15, 21 8 (26 4

SE2d 7 25) (1 980).

2. In its ord er, the trial c o u rt granted partial s u mmary ju d gment to Co x o n his

c laim f o r v ic ario u s liabilit y , r u ling that ev en w itho u t the ad m issio n, based u p o n

Law renz ’s d e p o sitio n testimo ny, there w a s ev id e nc e that W ellPath exerc ised c o ntro l

o v e r the time, m etho d, and m a nner o f her w o rk su c h that s he sho u ld be c o nsid ered an

emp lo yee and no t an ind e p e n d e n t c o ntrac to r, and t hat at the time o f the c o llisio n,

Law renz w as a c ting in the c o urse and s c o p e o f her emp lo yment w i t h W e l l P ath.

W ellPath c o ntend s that t his ru ling w as erro neo u s bec au se there are genu ine issu es o f

f ac t as to “ bo th Law renz ’ s e mp lo yment statu s and ‘ c o urse and sc o p e’ liability. ” We
agree that the trial c o u rt’ s ru ling w as erro neo u s.

[A ]n emp lo yer is generally no t liable f o r t he to rts o f a n ind ep e nd e nt co ntrac to r. The histo ric al reaso n f or this c ommo n- law ru le is that bec au se the emp lo yer has no right o f c o ntro l o v er the manner in

w hic h the w o rk is t o be d o ne, it is to b e regard ed as t he c o ntrac to r’ s o w n enterp rise, and he, rather than the emp lo yer, is the p ro p er p arty to be

c harged w ith the resp onsibility f o r p rev enting the risk

. To this end , w hen

a c o ntrac t of emp lo yment c learly d eno min a t e s t h e other p arty a s a n ind ep e nd e nt c o ntrac to r, that relatio nship is p resu med to be tru e unless the ev id enc e sho w s that the emp lo y er assu m ed su c h c o ntro l.

12(Citatio ns a nd p u nc tu a t io n omitted

. ) Ga

. Mes s en ger Sv c. v

. Bra dley , 31 1 Ga. A p p

. 1 48,

1 49

- 1 50 (1 ) (7 1 5 SE2d 69 9 ) (201 1 )

. See also O C G A § § 5 1

- 2- 4 (“ [a]n emp lo yer
generally is no t resp o nsible f o r to rts c ommitted by his emp lo yee w hen the emp lo yee

exerc ises an ind ep end ent bu s iness a nd in it is no t su bj ec t to t he immed iate d irec tio n

and c o ntro l o f the emp lo yer” ), 51

- 2- 5 (5) (“ [ a]n emp lo yer is liable f o r t he negligenc e

o f a c o ntrac to r

. . . [i]f the e mp lo yer retains the right to d irec t o r c o ntro l the time and

manner o f exec u ting the w o r k o r i n t erf eres and assu mes c o ntro l so as to c reate the

relatio n o f mast e r a nd serv a nt o r so that an inj u ry r esu lts w hic h is t r ac eable to his

interf erenc e” ).

The test f o r d etermining w hether an emp lo yer is exerc ising a d egree o f

c o ntro l o v e r an ind ep end ent c o ntrac t or’ s wo rk su c h t hat the law w ill d eem the ind ep end e nt c ontrac to r to be a serv ant o f that emp lo yer—thu s mak ing t he emp lo yer v ic ario u sly liable f o r any w ro ngf

u l ac ts c o mmitted b y the c o ntrac to r —is whether the c o ntrac t giv es, o r t he emp lo y e r

assu mes, the right to c ontro l the t i m e, m anner, and m etho d o f the

p erf o r m a n c e o f the wo rk , as d istingu ished fro m the right to m erely

requ ire c ertain d ef

inite resu lts in c o nf

o rmity w ith the c o ntrac t. Pu t

ano ther way, the test is e ssentially w hether the c o ntrac to r has a b o na f id e existenc e ap art f

ro m the e mp lo yer o r f

u nc tio ns instead as the emp lo yer’ s alter ego

.

13( C itatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) Bo a tn er v

. S ho w Medi a , 331 G a. A p p

. 332, 335 ( 7 7 1

SE2d 40) (201 5 ).

I n this c ase, W ellPath c o ntrac ted w ith Law renz as an ind ep end ent c o ntrac to r

to assist health serv ic e ad ministrato rs (“ H SA ” ) in v ario u s Geo rgia p riso ns, inc lu d ing

D o o ly, Pu lask i, W ilc o x, Ru t led ge, and B ainbrid ge Co rrec tio nal, w ith t he transitio n

o v e r to W ellPath. That c o n t rac t, titled “ Ind ep end ent Co ntrac to r A greement,”

p ro v id ed that Law renz “ agrees to p ro v id e o n- s ite a d ministrativ e su p p o rt to med ic al

p ro v id ers at D oo ly State Priso n in D o oly Co u nty, Geo rgia, and any o t h e r t a s k s o r

d u ties assigned by [W ellPath]” and that she w ou ld “ p ro v id e no m o r e than f o rty (40)

ho u rs o f Serv ic es p er w ee k, u nless p rio r ap p ro v a l is giv e n by an au tho riz ed

rep resentativ e o f t he Co mp any. ” The agreement f u rther p ro vid ed t h a t “ [ c ]o nd u ct

and c o ntro l o f t h e w o rk to be p erf ormed u nd er this [a]greement b y Co ntrac to r lies

so lely w ith Co ntrac to r. ”

A c c o rd ing t o Law renz , she w as a n “ ambassad o r” f or W ellPath and w o rk ed

w hen they ne e d e d a s sistanc e. That assistanc e w as based u p o n the need s o f the

f a c ilities; Law renz “ help [ed ] [the f ac ilities/p r iso ns] bec o me ac cu sto med to t h e

W ellPath w ay. ” Law renz also d id o ther, “ d if f e r e n t t h ings” at t he p riso ns su c h as

14f

illing in f o r H SA s if

nec essary and help ing the p r iso ns p rep are f o r u p c o m ing au d its
by the A meric a n Co rrec tio nal A s s o ciatio n. L aw renz also p artic ip ated in c o nf erenc e

c alls b etw een the H SA she w as w o rk ing w ith at the resp ec tiv e p r iso n and W e llPath bu t

“ was j u st o n t h e re to su p p o rt [the H SA ], so if [W ellPath w as] ask ing them to d o

so mething a n d t hey did n’ t u nd erstand ho w to d o it, [ Law renz ] c o u ld help them. ”

Law renz w o u ld chec k in with her su p erv iso r ev ery c o u p le o f d ays to f ill her in o n w hat

w as go ing o n. She d id no t p erf orm c o ntrac t w o rk f

o r anyo ne else.

Law renz pro v id ed her o w n v e hic le and insu ranc e. She w as p a i d b y the ho u r

w henev er she su b m itted inv oic es and w o u ld o c c asio n a l l y w o r k o v e r time if need ed , bu t

her p ayment w as no t tied to the c o mp letio n o f any p artic u lar task

. She w a s r eimbu rsed

f o r all o f her exp e nses, inc lu d ing mileage, f o o d , and ho tel, bu t no t her c ell p ho ne, and

she had ac c ess to t he c o m p any intranet and w o uld lo g in w ith a passw o rd

. L a w r e nz

w as treated as an ind ep end ent c o ntrac to r f o r tax p urp o s es and d id no t rec eiv e any k ind

o f e mp lo yee benef

its thro ugh W e llPath; s he had health insu ranc e thro u gh her

hu sband , w ho w as emp lo yed by W ellPath as a f ac ility ad ministrato r.

L a w r e n z ’ s su p erv iso r at W ellPath av e r red that at the time o f the ac c id e n t ,

Law renz w as p ro v id ing serv ic es to Pu lask i State Priso n p u rsu ant to the ind ep end ent

15c o ntrac to r agreement. A ro u nd that same time, B ainbrid ge Co rrec tio nal reac hed o u t

t o We l l P a t h a n d r e q u e s t e d a d d i t i o nal assistanc e, w hic h Law renz ind e p e n d e n t l y a g r e e d

t o assu m e; she w as no t d irec ted o r o rd ered t o d o so by W ellPath. A c c o r d i n g t o t h e

s u perv iso r, at t he time o f the ac c id ent, Law renz had f inished assisting B ainbrid g e

Co rrec tio n a l a n d w a s retu rning to Pu lask i State Priso n o n her o w n; she w as no t

d irec ted to retu rn there b y W ellPath. W ith regard to Law renz ’ s w o rk in general, the

su p erv iso r av erred that WellPath d id no t r equ ire Law renz to ap p e a r o r w o r k at any

f ac ility at any p ar t i c u l ar t i m e. Rather, her d aily w o r k a c tiv ities w ere lef t to her o w n

d isc r etio n; she c o u ld start and finish j o b s o n her o w n sc hed u le, co u ld ref u se j o bs w hen
they c o nf lic ted w ith her sc hed u le o r p erso n a l p lans, and c o uld t a k e sabbatic als

“ witho u t rec o u rse. ” A c c o rd ing to the su p erv iso r, “W ellPath merely w anted to hav e

an ambassad o r at t he f

ac ility as a c o ntac t p o int f o r any issu es that aro se in the

transitio n[,]” and d id no t mo nito r ho w Law r enz perf o r med her w o rk “ as lo ng as she

go t the w o r k d o ne. ”

B e c au se the w ritten agreement s p e c i fi ca l l y cl a s s i fi e s L a wr e n z a s a n i n d e p e n d ent

c o n t r a c to r, Co x mu st p o int to so me ev id e nc e sho w ing that WellPath c o ntro lled the

time, manner, metho d , and means o f the wo rk t h at she d id as an ambassad o r at the

16p riso ns. See W a r d v

. D i recTV LLC , 342 G a. A pp

. 6 9 , 7 1 (1 ) (801 SE2d 1 1 0) (201 7 ).

C o x c o ntend s t hat W ellPath exerc ised c o ntro l o v er the time, manner, m etho d , a n d

means o f Law renz ’ s w o rk bec au se it w as p erf o rmed “u nd er the d irec tio n o f

W ellPath” and “ there w as no p artic u lar s k ill requ ired in the p artic u lar o c c up atio n. ” 8

Co x also p o ints to t he f

ac t t hat Law renz w as p aid an ho u rly rate and no t by the task ;

that she rep o rted regu larly to her su p erv iso r; and that W ellPath su p p lied all the to o ls

and the plac e o f w o rk

. Pretermitting that Co x’ s c harac teriz atio n o f Law renz ’ s d u t ies

o n behalf o f WellPath are no t c o nsistent w ith her dep ositio n testi m o n y, and that

Law renz testif

ied t hat she w as merely u p dating her su p erv iso r w hen they sp o k e, there

is ev id enc e to su p p o r t t h e c o nc lu sio n that Law r enz w a s a n ind e p e nd ent co ntrac t o r.

Law renz ’ s a greement w ith WellPath stated that she w as an ind ep end ent c o ntrac to r

and there w as t estimo ny that W ellPath did no t mo nito r o r c o ntro l Law renz ’ s w o rk o r

8 W e no t e t hat in su p p o rt o f these assertio ns, Co x c ites t o L aw renz ’ s d ep o sitio n

w here she t estif

ied that (1 ) af

t er the ac cid ent, she may hav e sp o k en to her su p erv iso r
a n d h e r su p erv iso r’ s su p erv iso r and (2) if s he had “ a p ro blem” w hile wo rk ing, t h e p erso n to who m she w o u l d rep o rt that p ro b lem w o u ld d ep end u p o n w hether the

“ fac ility had a p r oblem o r if [ s he] had a p ro blem. ” Co x’ s c o u n s e l s o u ght to c larif y Law renz ’s testimo ny as to w hat she meant as a “p ro blem” and stated , “ [i]f [she] had

a p ro blem in [her] j o b. ” Law renz seemed to agree w ith this clari f i c a t i o n a nd resp o nd ed that s he w o u ld go to her su p erv iso r. These c itatio ns d o no thing to p ro v e that W ellPath c o ntro lled Law renz ’ s w o r k or that her wo rk requ ired no p artic ular sk ill.

17her s c hed u le at the p r iso ns. I nd eed , Law renz testif ied that she w o rk e d when the

f ac ilities need ed a ssistanc e and w o rk ed w ithin the f ac ilities u sing th e ir f

o rms and
help ing their H SA s as need ed , and her s u p e rv i s o r t e s tif ied that her d aily w o rk and

ho u rs w e re lef

t to her o w n d isc retio n. L aw renz also u sed her o w n vehic le, maintained

insu ranc e o n the v ehic le, and d id n o t r ec e i v e emp lo yee benef its. See, e. g. , Gra n

ge

In demn i ty In s

. C

o

. v

. Bea v E x , In c

. , 342 Ga. A p p

. 6 01 , 602 (804 SE2d 17 3) (201 7 )
(af f irming grant o f

su mmary j u d gment to d ef e nd ant o n b asis that the d eliv ery d riv er

it hired w as an ind ep end ent co ntrac to r; c o ntrac t stated t hat d r i v e r wa s an ind ep end ent

c o ntrac to r, and d riv er u s ed his o w n v e hic le and maintained insu ranc e, w a s requ ired

to satisf y any sp ec if

ic c o nd itio ns set by the c u sto mers, rec eiv ed a 1 09 9 f o rm and d id

no t rec eiv e emp lo yee benef its). On t he other hand , there is also ev id enc e to su p p o rt

the c onc lu sio n that W ellPath maintained s u ffi ci e n t co n t r o l o v e r L a wrenz su ch that she

c an be c o nsid ered a n emp lo yee. Fo r examp le, und e r her w ritten co ntrac t, L aw renz
agreed to p ro v id e ad ministrativ e su p p o rt fo r the f a c i l ities and “ any o t her task s o r

d u ties” a s s ign ed b y W ellPa th , a nd also o btain ap p ro v al fo r wo r k e x ce e d i n g 4 0 h o u rs p er

w eek

. She also w ork ed o nly f o r W ellPath. A d d itio nally, there is so me d isp u te as to the

c o ntent o f w ebinars that Law renz v iew ed and w hether they w ere p ro v i d ed by

18W ellPath o r t he resp e c tiv e priso ns. “ Und er t hese c irc u mstanc es, w e canno t say that

the ev id enc e is und isp uted .” (C i t a t i o n and pu nc tu atio n omitted

. ) Bo a tn er , 331 Ga.

A p p

. at 335. See also Da v i s v

. Bea s ley Ti

mb er Co

. , 241 Ga. A p p

. 7 06 , 7 08 (1 ) (527 SE2d

2 21 ) (1 9 9 9 ) (ev id enc e that timber c o mp any d irec ted tru ck d riv er’ s “ timi n g a n d

d estinatio n o f hau ls” s u f

f ic ient to f ind that d r iv er w as e mp lo yee). Cf

. Bra d ley , 31 1 Ga.

Ap p

. a t 1 5 0 ( 1 ) ( a f

f irming d enial o f su mmary j u d gment t o ap pellant/messenger serv i ce

w here genu ine issu es o f material f ac t existed as to w hether degree o f co ntro l exerc ised
by ap p ellant/messenger serv ic e o v er c o u rier w as su c h that c o u rier w as an emp lo yee

o f a p p e l l a n t , r a t h er than an ind ep end ent c o ntrac to r). A cc o rd ingly, the trial c ou rt e r r e d

in granting su mm ary j u d gment to Co x o n his c laim that WellPath was v ic ario u sly

liable f o r Law renz ’ s a lleged negl i g e nc e u nd er the d o c trine o f resp o nd eat su p erio r. 9

This co nc lu s io n rend ers m o ot W ellPath’ s c o ntentio n that the trial c o u rt er r e d i n

9 A s f o r WellPath’ s c laim that the trial c o u rt erred in relying u p o n Law renz ’ s d ep o sitio n, w hic h w as t a k en bef o re it w as ad ded a s a p a rty, “ w e need no t reac h this issu e, b ec au se o u r rev iew o f o nly t he ev id enc e t ak en by rep r e sentati v es o f [Co x]

c r e ates issu e s o f m aterial f ac t as to w hether [Law renz ] w as an ind ep e n d e n t

c o ntrac to r” o r an emp lo yee. See D a v i s , 241 Ga. A p p

. at 7 08 (1 ).

19ru ling that Law renz w as ac ting w ithin the c o urse a nd sc o pe o f her emp lo yment w ith

W ellPath at the time o f

the c o llisio n. 1 0

Ju dgmen t rev ers e

d an d c a se r e m an d ed wi th di recti on

. McFa d den , P. J. , a n d Ma rkle,

J. , co n cu r

.

1 0 A s f o r any c laim by Co x that W ellPath mad e o t her ad missio ns in j u d ic io o n the issu e o f L a w r e n z ’ s emp lo yment statu s, i. e. , w hether L aw renz was an emp lo yee
ac ting w it h i n t h e sc o p e of her e mp lo yment at the time o f the inc id ent, w e no te that

su c h a statement “is no t a statement o f fac t b u t is an o p inio n or co nc lu s io n as to law , f ac t, o r mixed qu estio n o f bo th” as to Law renz ’ s statu s. Hea lth Ho ri z o n s v

. S ta te Fa rm Mu t. A u t o

. I n s

. C o

. , 2 3 9 Ga. A p p. 440, 446 (a) (521 SE2d 383) (1 9 9 9 ) (p hysic al p rec ed e nt o nly) (rej ec ting d e f end ant’ s c laim t hat s tatement in c omp laint that p laintif f

“ fu r nishes health c are serv ic e s” w as an ad m issio n in j ud i c i o t h at p laintif f w as engaged in the p r ac tic e o f med ic ine). “ [A ]d missio ns in j u d ic io ap p ly o nly to ad m issio ns o f f a ct and d o no t ap ply w hen the ad m i ssio n is merely the o p inio n o r c o nc lu sio n o f the p lead er as t o f

a c t o r law

. ” ( Citatio ns a nd p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) Id

. See also S o mmerfi eld v

. Blu e C

ro s s & Blu e S hi

e l d o f Ga

. , 235 Ga. A pp

. 37 5, 37 7 (2) ( 509 SE2d 1 00) (1 9 9 8) (p art- t ime emp lo yee’ s ad missio n in his answ e r that he w as “ ac t ing as an emp lo yee” o f the p riv ate emp lo yer “ w as no t an ad missi o n i n j u d i c io ; it w a s merely an exp r essio n o f

[the emp lo yee’ s] belief

as to a legal c o nc lu sio n” ).

20