Amedisys Home Health, Inc. v. Howard

Amedisys Home Health, Inc. v. Howard

Opinion

 [**61]   [*656]  Eldridge, Judge.

It is undisputed that 24-hour on-call field nurse, appellee-plaintiff Mary Howard, fell in the driveway of her home injuring her ankle in the early evening of January 6, 2002. At the time of her fall, she was carrying patient reports for completion before the following morning, a pager, a cellular telephone, a newspaper, and a takeout pizza for the family's dinner for which she had stopped on the way home. Contending that her injuries arose out of and in the course of employment, Howard filed a workers' compensation claim against her former employer/self-insurer, appellant-defendant Amedisys Home Health, Inc. (“Amedisys”). Following a hearing, an administrative law judge denied Howard benefits. The appellate division of the State Board of Workers' Compensation (“Board”) thereafter reversed. We granted Amedisys' application for discretionary review upon the judgment of the Lumpkin County Superior Court affirming the Board's decision. Amedisys appeals, in three enumerations of error, contending that the [***2]  superior court erred in finding Howard's accident compensable as arising out of and in the course of her employment for Howard's status at the time of the accident as “on-call” and continuously employed. Finding that Howard was injured at her residence after concluding personal business and resuming the business of Amedisys, we affirm.

] In reviewing a workers' compensation award, both this court and the superior  [**62]  court must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing before the appellate division. It is axiomatic that the findings of the State Board of Workers' Compensation, when supported by any evidence, are conclusive and binding, and that neither the superior court nor this court has any authority to substitute itself as a fact finding body in lieu of the Board.

(Footnote omitted.) Mayor & Aldermen of the City of Savannah v.  [*657]  Stevens, 261 Ga. App. 694, 695 (583 SE2d 553) (2003), rev'd on other ground, 278 Ga. 166 (598 SE2d 456) 2004 Ga. LEXIS 474 (2004). ] If an injury or death is to be compensable under workers' compensation, it must arise out of and in the course of the claimant's employment, OCGA § 34-9-1 (4), such determinations [***3]  as “ ‘mixed question[s] of law and fact.’ [Cit.]” Wade v. Ga. Diversified Indus., 240 Ga. App. 225, 226 (1) (522 SE2d 746) (1999).

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.