Georgia Court of Appeals Limits Application of "Rycroft" Defense in Workers' Compensation

Feb 27 2025 19:19

The Georgia Court of Appeals today limited the application of the so-called " Rycroft defense" in workers' compensation cases.  Put most simply, the Rycroft defense allowed an employer to escape any responsibility for a work injury where the employee had knowingly and willfully made a false representation about a prior injury, the employer relied upon that injury and hired the employee as a result of that reliance, and there is a causal injury between the false representation and the work injury.
 
Today, in McKay v. Inalfa Roof Systems, Inc., et al. , case no.  A24A1422 (Ga.App. 2025), the employee had undisputedly failed to inform the employer of a prior injury to the same body part she injured in this case.  The State Board found that her first injury, on June 11, 2021, was barred by the Rycroft defense.  Following the June 11, 2021 back injury, but prior to returning to work, the claimant informed her supervisor both of the prior injury and her belief that the June 11, 2021 injury had aggravated it. Despite this knowledge, the employer returned her to work in the same job, on September 9, 2021, approximately two months after the accident.  She then suffered a second on-the-job injury on September 14, 2021.  So the timeline is roughly as follows:
 
July 16, 2012 -- pre-employment injury due to a four-wheeler accident
Late 2020 -- claimant begins work for employer and fails to disclose four-wheeler accident or injuries on post-hire questionnaire
June 16, 2021 -- first injury at work
September 9, 2021 -- claimant, who has now informed employer of both the July 16, 2012 injury and her belief the June 16, 2021 injury aggravated it, returns to work
September 14, 2021 -- claimant suffers second injury
 
The only issue on appeal was whether the second injury on September 14, 2021, after the employer was notified of the pre-employment injury and returned her to work anyway, was barred by the Rycroft defense.  The employer argued, and the State Board of Workers' Compensation held, that it was.  The McKay  Court reversed that finding today.

The McKay  Court reasoned that:

 

The common law underpinnings of the Rycroft defense — theories of fraud and fraudulent inducement to contract — require that a party rely on the false representation to his detriment, and that the reliance be justified. In the fraudulent-inducement-to-contract context, a party’s failure to rescind or repudiate the agreement after learning of the fraudulent representation acts as a waiver of that defense. By analogy, Inalfa’s willingness to retain McKay in the assembly operator position, after learning of her prior back injury and false representation about it, waives its right to use the Rycroft defense to deny McKay workers’ compensation benefits for the subsequent injury she suffered.

The Court thus found the second, September 14, 2021 injury to be compensable.

This is a victory for injured workers in the State of Georgia.  If allowed to stand, the State Board's ruling would have essentially meant that employers can return employees to work, knowing in full they had a pre-employment injury, and yet never have to pay them workers' compensation benefits if they are injured.  The ruling turned the Rycroft  case on its head, as the Court of Appeals rightly found, by taking the fraud and reliance elements out of consideration and rendering the Rycroft defense a punitive measure rather than a remedial measure.  That is, the State Board saw fit to punish the claimant for not disclosing the prior injury, rather than remediating the damage done to the employer by the failure to disclose.  But Rycroft was never meant to be punitive -- it was intended to apply contract principles to the employer/employee relationship such that the employer could not be induced to hire someone who was prone to injury when that person knowingly and willfully failed to disclose the injury after being asked.  
 
We know this because the Rycroft  case actually requires the employer to ask.  The Rycroft Court held that an employee may not falsely respond to a questionnaire given by the employer in order to determine suitability to do the job.  It did not state, or imply, that the employee has an affirmative responsibility to outline each and every injury she has ever suffered, or to disclose potential disabilities.  The employer has to ask.  
 
There are many and varied reasons why this is the case, and the Rycroft  Court spelled them out.  Suffice it to say, it was never intended to give employers a free pass to continue to employ workers infinitely with absolutely no risk that they will ever have to pay for a work injury.  The defense is intended to apply to give a remedy to an employer who was unaware of a previous injury.  It was never intended to protect an employer who became aware, and the McKay  Court rightly held as much.

 

The Georgia Court of Appeals today limited the application of the so-called " Rycroft defense" in workers' compensation cases.  Put most simply, the Rycroft defense allowed an employer to escape any responsibility for a work injury where the employee had knowingly and willfully made a false representation about a prior injury, the employer relied upon that injury and hired the employee as a result of that reliance, and there is a causal injury between the false representation and the work injury.
 
Today, in McKay v. Inalfa Roof Systems, Inc., et al. , case no.  A24A1422 (Ga.App. 2025), the employee had undisputedly failed to inform the employer of a prior injury to the same body part she injured in this case.  The State Board found that her first injury, on June 11, 2021, was barred by the Rycroft defense.  Following the June 11, 2021 back injury, but prior to returning to work, the claimant informed her supervisor both of the prior injury and her belief that the June 11, 2021 injury had aggravated it. Despite this knowledge, the employer returned her to work in the same job, on September 9, 2021, approximately two months after the accident.  She then suffered a second on-the-job injury on September 14, 2021.  So the timeline is roughly as follows:
 
July 16, 2012 -- pre-employment injury due to a four-wheeler accident
Late 2020 -- claimant begins work for employer and fails to disclose four-wheeler accident or injuries on post-hire questionnaire
June 16, 2021 -- first injury at work
September 9, 2021 -- claimant, who has now informed employer of both the July 16, 2012 injury and her belief the June 16, 2021 injury aggravated it, returns to work
September 14, 2021 -- claimant suffers second injury
The only issue on appeal was whether the second injury on September 14, 2021, after the employer was notified of the pre-employment injury and returned her to work anyway, was barred by the Rycroft defense.  The employer argued, and the State Board of Workers' Compensation held, that it was.  The McKay  Court reversed that finding today.

The McKay  Court reasoned that:


The common law underpinnings of the Rycroft defense — theories of fraud and fraudulent inducement to contract — require that a party rely on the false representation to his detriment, and that the reliance be justified. In the fraudulent-inducement-to-contract context, a party’s failure to rescind or repudiate the agreement after learning of the fraudulent representation acts as a waiver of that defense. By analogy, Inalfa’s willingness to retain McKay in the assembly operator position, after learning of her prior back injury and false representation about it, waives its right to use the Rycroft defense to deny McKay workers’ compensation benefits for the subsequent injury she suffered.

The Court thus found the second, September 14, 2021 injury to be compensable.

This is a victory for injured workers in the State of Georgia.  If allowed to stand, the State Board's ruling would have essentially meant that employers can return employees to work, knowing in full they had a pre-employment injury, and yet never have to pay them workers' compensation benefits if they are injured.  The ruling turned the Rycroft  case on its head, as the Court of Appeals rightly found, by taking the fraud and reliance elements out of consideration and rendering the Rycroft defense a punitive measure rather than a remedial measure.  That is, the State Board saw fit to punish the claimant for not disclosing the prior injury, rather than remediating the damage done to the employer by the failure to disclose.  But Rycroft was never meant to be punitive -- it was intended to apply contract principles to the employer/employee relationship such that the employer could not be induced to hire someone who was prone to injury when that person knowingly and willfully failed to disclose the injury after being asked.  
 
We know this because the Rycroft  case actually requires the employer to ask.  The Rycroft Court held that an employee may not falsely respond to a questionnaire given by the employer in order to determine suitability to do the job.  It did not state, or imply, that the employee has an affirmative responsibility to outline each and every injury she has ever suffered, or to disclose potential disabilities.  The employer has to ask.  
 
There are many and varied reasons why this is the case, and the Rycroft  Court spelled them out.  Suffice it to say, it was never intended to give employers a free pass to continue to employ workers infinitely with absolutely no risk that they will ever have to pay for a work injury.  The defense is intended to apply to give a remedy to an employer who was unaware of a previous injury.  It was never intended to protect an employer who became aware, and the McKay  Court rightly held as much.