Court Opinion

ID: 9585887
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:04:48.737026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:16.241963
License: Public Domain

Shulman, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
Although I join with the majority in believing that the Fulton-DeKalb Hospital Authority (FDHA) should be made an employer for purposes of workers’ compensation, I cannot agree that the 1980 amendment to the Workers’ Compensation Act brought FDHA within the definition of “employer” as it is used in that Act. That amendment did add public corporations to the list of potential employers, but it did not remove from the definition of “employer” the requirement that it be “engaged in any business.” Since there is nothing in the record to indicate that FDHA has begun to engage in business since the Supreme Court held in Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Auth. v. Gaither, 241 Ga. 572 (247 SE2d 89), that it did not, I am constrained to find that FDHA remains outside the statutory definition of an “employer.”
While it may have been the intent of the legislature to bring FDHA within the Workers’ Compensation Act, the 1980 amendment to that Act did not remove both of the impediments the Supreme Court in Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Auth. v. Gaither, supra, found to be in the way of such an inclusion. For that reason, I respectfully dissent from the judgment of the majority.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Quillian, Judge Banke and Judge Birdsong join in this dissent.