Volume 18 No. 106 July 2006

When an employee tests positive for marijuana or a controlled substance following an on-the-job injury, many employers and insurers likely believe that it will be relatively easy to escape responsibility for indemnity benefits and medical benefits.When an employee tests positive for marijuana or a controlled substance following an on-the-job injury, many employers and insurers likely believe that it will be relatively easy to escape responsibility for indemnity benefits and medical benefits.  Indeed, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-17(b) provides that “No compensation shall be allowed for an injury or death due to intoxication by alcohol or being under the influence of marijuana or a ... Continue Reading

If a plaintiff files his/her first claim with a defective affidavit and dismisses it before Defendant has the opportunity to move for dismissal on the merits, then it appears that plaintiff cannot thereafter renew that exact claim under the renewal statute.            If a plaintiff files his/her first claim with a defective affidavit and dismisses it before Defendant has the opportunity to move for dismissal on the merits, then it appears that plaintiff cannot thereafter renew that exact claim under the renewal statute.  This is due to the fact that an invalid original complaint cannot serve as the basis for a renewed complaint under ... Continue Reading

While the recent decision of Martines v. Worley & Sons reiterated the principal that an employee's refusal to accept suitable light-duty employment following a work-related injury must be based upon a physical inability and/or lack of skill to perform the proffered job, the Court of Appeals further elaborated upon this principle within the context of undocumented workers.While the recent decision of Martines v. Worley & Sons reiterated the principal that an employee’s refusal to accept suitable light-duty employment following a work-related injury must be based upon a physical inability and/or lack of skill to perform the proffered job, the Court of Appeals further ... Continue Reading

The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), among its many provisions, provides a limitation of liability for damage to cargo. Specifically, COGSA allows a limitation of $500 per package for losses to cargoThe Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), among its many provisions, provides a limitation of liability for damage to cargo.  Specifically, COGSA allows a limitation of $500 per package for losses to cargo.  While this is federal law, it received rare state court treatment in the recent case of Mitsui Marine & Fire Insurance Company, Ltd. v. Hanjin Shipping Company, Ltd., Fulton County Daily Report, June 21, 2006.  In this case, and a companion case, ... Continue Reading