Martines v. Worley & Sons Construction
Georgia Court of Appeals
628 S.E.2d 113 (2006)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Merced Martines (plaintiff) suffered a work-related injury during his employment with Worley & Sons Construction (Worley) (defendant). Martines’s doctor placed restrictions on Martines’s ability to work after the injury, and Worley offered Martines a delivery-driver position that fit within the doctor’s restrictions. Martines knew how to drive and was physically able to drive the truck. However, Martines could not take the position because he had entered the United States illegally and could not obtain a Georgia driver’s license. Martines ultimately did not return to work at Worley, and he sought workers’-compensation benefits. An administrative-law judge (ALJ) awarded temporary-total-disability benefits based on a finding that the delivery-driver position offered to Martines was not suitable because Martines did not have a driver’s license. The Appellate Division of Georgia’s State Board of Workers’ Compensation affirmed the ALJ’s decision. However, the superior court reversed the award, concluding that the board had incorrectly analyzed whether the delivery-driver job was suitable and that Martines had not shown that his refusal to accept the delivery-driver job was justified. Martines appealed to the Georgia Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Smith, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 791,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.