Court Opinion

ID: 9584065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:44:23.548994+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:06:35.131372
License: Public Domain

Pope, Judge,
concurring specially.
While I concur fully with the majority opinion, I write separately to make it clear that this court’s decisions in King v. Piedmont-Warner Dev., 177 Ga. App. 176 (338 SE2d 758) (1985) and Evco Plastics v. Burton, 200 Ga. App. 121 (407 SE2d 60) (1991) do not support the claimant’s position that the claimant does not have the burden of showing that her inability to secure employment elsewhere was proximately caused by her previous on-the-job injury. In Hartford Accident &c. Co. v. Bristol, 242 Ga. 287 (248 SE2d 661) (1978), the Georgia Supreme Court established the standard of p::oof a workers’ compensation claimant would have to meet before proving a change of condition authorizing a resumption of disability benefits. The standard established by the Georgia Supreme Court is the claimant must “show that his inability to secure suitable employment elsewhere was proximately caused by his previous accidental injury.” Id. at 288.1
The subsequent decisions of this court have not modified or deviated from that standard. See, e.g., United States &c. Ins. Co. v. Giles, 177 Ga. App. 684 (340 SE2d 284) (1986); Gilmer v. Atlanta Housing Auth., 170 Ga. App. 326 (316 SE2d 535) (1984); Georgia Power Co. v. Brown, 169 Ga. App. 45 (311 SE2d 236) (1983). Our decisions in King and Burton cannot be read to relieve plaintiff of any part of that burden either.
In King, the claimant “testified that he had applied to various employers, but his inquiries never reached the stage of discussing his disability because no work was available.” King, supra at 177. This court held that the claimant was still able to meet his burden of proof including the causation requirement because the claimant was able to show through both medical evidence and his testimony that if work was available for which he was qualified, because of his disability, he *222would be unable to obtain employment. In fact, his former employer, who had laid King off for economic reasons, testified that “ ‘if a physician was to tell Andy that he could not lift heavy loads, and carry them — in other words, if he could not assist other people on the job to do that, if the only thing he could do was to nail nails . . . ,’ he would not hire him.” Id.
Decided November 4, 1991
Reconsideration denied December 9, 1991
Goodman, McGuffey, Aust & Lindsey, Edward H. Lindsey, Jr., Leslie Stewart, for appellants.
Hackel & Hackel, Thomas M. Hackel, for appellee.
In Evco Plastics v. Burton, supra, it was not necessary for this court to reach the question of whether the claimant in that case had shown proximate causation between her inability to secure other employment and his previous on-the-job injury, because the claimant failed to present any evidence that she had sought other employment. Id. at 122. In sum, these decisions do not change the claimant’s burden of proof in these cases.
The claimant further suggests that this burden of proof is virtually impossible to meet absent subpoenaing every potential employer approached by the claimant to require their testimony. For guidance on how this burden can be met without such drastic measures, claimant should consider the guidance provided by this court in decisions such as King, supra; Giles, supra, and Brown v. Ga. Power Co., 181 Ga. App. 500 (352 SE2d 818) (1987).

 In the next paragraph, however, the Georgia Supreme Court applied a less stringent standard of proof in that case. The court stated that “[i]n the present case the record contains some probative evidence that the claimant made a sincere effort to secure suitable employment elsewhere.” Id. at 288. For that reason, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of this court in that case. The court reached no conclusion regarding whether the claimant had met his burden of showing proximate causation between his previous accidental injury and his inability to secure suitable employment elsewhere. This inconsistency within that opinion may explain the apparent confusion among certain members of the claimant’s bar regarding what burden of proof a claimant must meet to prove a change of condition authorizing a resumption of disability benefits.