The Ga. Rycroft Defense – When a Workers’ Compensation Claimant Misrepresents

Do You Know the Rule?

The Georgia Supreme Court articulated a three-part test for determining when fraud in the inducement will bar an employee’s claim for benefits. In Georgia Electric Company v. Rycroft, 378 SE2d 111 (Ga. 1989), the court stated that the defense applies where:

1. The employee knowingly and wilfully made a false representation about her physical condition; 
2. The employer relied upon that false representation and its reliance was a substantial factor in hiring the employee; and 
3. A causal connection existed between the false representation and the injury for which the employee seeks workers' compensation benefits. 

Element # 1: False Representation

The employee deliberately misrepresents his physical health. This typically happens when the employee falsely represents his pre-employment physical condition during hiring. Maybe, for example, he fails to mention a car accident five years earlier that injured his back and left him with ongoing back pain. If he later asserts that he suffered a back injury lifting something as part of his job, the Rycroft defense may enable the employer to avoid the claim.

Element # 2: Reliance

For the Rycroft defense to apply, the employer must rely on the misrepresentation and that reliance must cause it harm. 

A recent case appears to narrow the defense. But in fact, it may simply clarify how the reliance factor works. That case posed the question: What if the employer learns of the fraud but then keeps the employee on staff? At that point, the reliance element is missing.The appellate court in that case ruled that the company waived its right to assert fraud to deny the claim even though the employee misrepresented her physical condition during the application process. This, the court observed, was because it continued to employ her after learning of the misrepresentation. McKay  v. Inalfa Roof System, Inc., No. A24A1422 (Ga. Ct. App. 02/27/25).

Element #3: Causation Element

The causation element of the defense concerns the connection between the employee's pre-existing physical condition, which was the subject of the false representation, and the injury for which the employee seeks benefits.

In one case, for example, the Rycroft defense barred a claim where the employee made a false representation on a post-hiring medical questionnaire. Had the employee answered truthfully, the employer would not have allowed the employee to begin work without further investigation. Fort Howard Corp. v. Devoe, 442 SE2d 474 (Ga. 1994)

When the Defense does not Apply

The defense does not apply if the misrepresentation and workers’ compensation claim are not connected. Thus, if the employee fails to disclose an existing spinal injury on his job application, then files a claim when a box falls on and injures his hand at work, the defense very likely won’t apply. This is because there is a disconnect between the two injuries.

The defense also does not apply if a physician has determined that the employee’s pre-existing injury healed prior to the workplace injury. See Capital Atlanta, Inc. v. Carroll, 44 S.E. 2d 592 (Ga. 1994) (holding that the defense did not apply because the prior injury had already healed and thus there was no causal link between the existing injury and workplace injury).

Lessons for Employers

Employers should work with their attorneys to ensure their application forms are sufficiently detailed to capture relevant health information from the employee. 

Employers should train their HR staff to ensure that applicants fill out these forms fully before the company finishes the hiring process. 

When an employee files a claim, it’s important for employers to go back and review those forms to see if the new injuries could be related to an employee’s prior injury.

Share This Article: