Court Opinion

ID: 9853233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:44:49.942103+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:43.376228
License: Public Domain

Sognier, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur specially. The judgment in Lavender v. Spetalnick, 161 Ga. App. 75 (289 SE2d 291) (1982) is correct as its facts meet the following criteria set forth in Samuel v. Baitcher, 247 Ga. 71, 74 (274 SE2d 327) (1981): “In this case, a valid claim was made under the Workers’ Compensation Act. A valid award was granted by the board. The award was not collected for only two reasons. First, the employer carried no workers’ compensation insurance. Second, the employer was insolvent. Had the employer’s agents (the Baitchers) carried out their duties under the Act by procuring workers’ compensation insurance coverage, the award would have been collected. Under these limited circumstances, the employee may pursue a claim at law against the agent of the employer for an amount equal to the award of the Workers’ Compensation Board.”
Nevertheless, in Lavender we imply that the cause arises solely upon the failure of the employer’s agent to procure the workers’ compensation coverage. This implication is at odds with Samuel v. Baitcher, supra, and therein Lavender should not be followed.