Partner Jay Eidex Secures Dismissal in Jackson County Case Due to Exclusive Remedy Doctrine

June 16, 2025. Partner Jay Eidex secured a dismissal for his client in Jackson County in a case involving the Workers’ Compensation Exclusive Remedy Provisions of The Georgia Workers’ Compensation Act. This claim arose out of a workplace injury when the Plaintiff/Decedent was operating a piece of heavy machinery which rolled over tragically resulting in his death. In prior proceedings the Court had determined the decedent was acting within the Course and Scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Plaintiff sought to invoke the affirmative act exception to the tort immunity provided to employers under The Georgia Workers’ Compensation Act.

There were several Defendants named in the case and Mr. Eidex’s client was a supervisor at the job site. It was alleged that Mr. Eidex’s client instructed decedent to operate the piece of machinery in question in a specific area which had a level gradient. The decedent operated the machinery outside of the area in question.

Plaintiffs argued that tort liability should be imposed on Defendants via the Mine Safety and Health Act and the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Mr. Eidex’s client and the other Co-Defendants moved for dismissal. The Court found that Title 34 Chapter 9 of the Official Code of Georgia (The Georgia Worker’s Compensation Act) makes clear that, barring specific narrow exceptions, an employee injured or killed in the course and scope of employment does not have a cause of action: against his employer or co-employees of the same employer other than filing a claim for benefits under the Georgia Workers’ Compensation Act. The Court recognized that a narrow exception to the exclusive remedy provision exists when a supervisor “commits an affirmative act causing or increasing the risk of injury to another employee.” However, the Court found that the only instruction Mr. Eidex’s client provided the decedent delineated the area he was to operate the machinery within — an area separate from where he lost control of the equipment and an area which was specifically limited to terrain with a level gradient. The Court also found that Mr. Eidex’s client did not, intentionally or negligently, direct the decedent to operate the equipment outside these boundaries and there was nothing in the record to show that Mr. Eidex’s client committed any other affirmative or willful act that caused or was likely to increase the decedent’s chance of injury or death.

This Court found no evidence that Mr. Eidex’s client committed a direct affirmative act that would nullify the protection of the exclusive remedy afforded him by The Georgia Workers’ Compensation Act and granted Mr. Eidex motion to dismiss.

The case is Brian Thigpen, et. al. v. Vulcan Construction Materials, LLC, et. al., Superior Court of Jackson County, CAFN 23CV0420.

Recent Posts