Whitney Arp of Gorby Peters, arguing for the GIIP, said the borrowed servant doctrine gave a three-prong test to determine whose insurer is responsible for the claims:

Whether the "special master," or the entity the temp is contracted out to, had complete direction and control over the "borrowed servant," or temp worker.
Whether the "general master," or temp agency, had no such control.
Whether the "special master" had the exclusive right to discharge the servant.

Lexi West of Eraclides Gelman, arguing for appellee company Carpet Cycle, on the other hand, gave three reasons why the GIIP should be responsible for paying the claims:

The superior court did not err in applying the "any evidence" standard to the factual findings of the State Board of Workers' Compensation Appellate Division.
Even if the Court of Appeals determines the superior court erred as a matter of law in applying the "any evidence" standard, there is still no theory of law in which the pool can prove that her client is subject to workers' compensation liability under the act, and in turn there is nothing for the pool to request as an offset and reimbursement.
Even if the Court of Appeals finds that her client is liable for workers' compensation coverage, the GIIP applied the statute in a way that violated her client's due process rights.

Judge Elizabeth Gobeil asked what cases supported the parties' positions, with particular interest in recent cases dealing with borrowed servant doctrine and the appellate court's authority in ruling on the issue. She scrutinized the third prong's interpretation, in particular.

Special Reports /

Georgia court mulls whether staffing agency or insurer should pay workers' comp claims

Related Stories

Recommended For You