BRYAN v GREENWOOD MOTOR LINES INC
Filing
27
ORDER granting 22 Motion to Intervene. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE W LOUIS SANDS on 11/18/2021. (sbd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
GRADY BRYAN, III and
KRISTI BRYAN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DAVID SWISHER, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CASE NO.: 7:20-CV-00253 (WLS)
ORDER
Before the Court is a “Motion to Intervene” filed by the Georgia Department of
Administrative Services (“Department”). (Doc. 22.) Therein, the Department seeks to
intervene in the above-styled action. (Id.) Based on the findings and analysis below, the
Department’s motion is hereby GRANTED.
RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On the evening August 24, 2018, Plaintiff Grady Bryan was injured in a vehicle accident
that occurred on the U.S. Highway 84 bypass/Georgia State Road 38 in Thomasville, Georgia.
(Doc. 1 at 2.) Plaintiff Bryan was performing maintenance on a traffic light in a suspended lift
bucket attached to a Georgia Department of Transportation utility-boom truck when the truck
was struck by a tractor trailer. (Id. at 2; Doc. 1-2 at 4-5.) The driver of the tractor trailer,
Defendant David Swisher, was driving on behalf of motor carrier Defendant Greenwood
motor Lines, Inc. (Id.) Plaintiff Grady Bryan was thrown from the utility-boom truck’s bucket
on impact, causing him to fall approximately twenty-five (25) feet to the ground. (Id.) Plaintiff
Grady Bryan now alleges he sustained serious physical and mental injuries from the fall, which
have a great affect on his ability to work and care for himself. (Id.) After his injury, Plaintiff
Bryan began receiving workers’ compensation payments from the Department pursuant to
O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1. (Doc. 22-1 at 2.) As of July 15, 2021, Plaintiff had received $345,611.85 in
workers’ compensation from the Department. (Id.)
1
Plaintiffs initially filed their complaint in the State Court of Thomas County, Georgia
on December 1, 2020. (Docs. 1; 1-1.) On December 24, 2020, the Parties filed a “Joint Notice
of Removal,” removing the case to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff
Grady Bryan currently seeks damages in excess of $10.8 million including medical expenses,
lost past and future wages, lost earnings capacity, and past and future pain and suffering.
(Docs. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff Kristi Bryan seeks an unspecified award for compensatory damages
based on a loss of consortium due to her husband’s injuries. (Id.) After the case was removed
to this Court, the Department asserted a subrogation lien against any recovery Plaintiff Grady
Bryan received as a result of the civil action. (Doc. 22-1 at 2.) The Department timely filed the
instant motion to intervene on July 15, 2021. No objections were filed in response to the
Department’s motion.
DISCUSSION
Under to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may permit a party to
intervene in a pending action upon a timely motion where the party
(1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or (2) claims
an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action,
and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair
or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties
adequately represent that interest.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). When considering a motion to intervene under Rule 24(a), the Court
must consider (1) whether the motion to intervene is timely; (2) whether the movant has an
interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) whether
the movant is so situated that disposition of the action may impede or impair its ability to
protect that interest; and (4) whether the movant’s interest is inadequately represented by the
existing parties to the suit. Worlds v. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 929 F.2d 591, 593
(11th Cir. 1991).
The Department seeks to intervene in this action on the grounds that it maintains “an
unconditional statutory right to intervene” pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11.1 and because the
Department’s interest in protecting its subrogation lien against Plaintiff Swisher’s recovery.
(Doc. 22-1 at 3.) Georgia Law O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11.1 permits an employer to intervene in an
employee’s suit where an employee who sustains injuries on the job sues a third party that has
2
legal liability for the injury. In such an instance, the employer is granted a subrogation lien and
the employer may recover workers’ compensation benefits it paid to the employee. See Ga.
Elec. Membership Corp. v. Hi-Ranger, Inc., 275 Ga. 197 (2002). Thus, the Department asserts that
because it paid workers’ compensation benefits to Plaintiff Bryan, it is entitled to recover from
the Defendants or from funds received by Plaintiffs arising out of the instant action the full
amount of benefits paid. The Department requests that it be permitted to intervene under the
following terms: (1) that Plaintiff present all available evidence of economic and non-economic
damages to the jury; (2) that Plaintiff do nothing at trial to prejudice the Department’s lien; (3)
that the jury use a special verdict form itemizing economic and non-economic damages; (4)
that a bifurcated trial for subrogation recovery follow the case in chief should the jury find in
favor of Plaintiff; and (5) that a post-trial hearing on apportionment of attorney’s fees follow
the subrogation recovery phase of the trial. (Doc. 22-1 at 4.)
Upon consideration of the Federal Rules, factors as described by case law, the Georgia
Law, relevant facts, and particularly noting the absence of opposition to the Department’s
timely motion, the Court concludes that intervention is appropriate. The Department is
entitled to recovery based on the subrogation pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11.1. The Court
finds that the subrogation lien constitutes an “interest relating to the property or transaction
that is the subject of the action” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) and that absent
intervention, the Department’s interest may be impaired in the course and disposition of this
action. See Willmore v. Arnold, No. 5:08-CV-261 (HL), 2009 WL 1241323 (M.D. Ga. May 4,
2009). Because the terms of the Department’s proposed intervention in this action are
unchallenged, the Court finds no reason to delineate the proposed terms of the Department’s
participation in this action or make any decisions regarding a special verdict form or the
subrogation lien at this time. See Curtis v. SNL Distrib. Serv. Corp., No. 1:18-CV-04542-JPB,
2019 WL 12762943, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 7, 2019) (quoting Broad v. Hitts, No. 5:08-CV366(CAR), 2009 WL 5031372, at *2 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 14, 2009)).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the “Motion to Intervene” filed by the Georgia
Department of Administrative Services (Doc. 22) is GRANTED. The Department is hereby
permitted to intervene in this action as a third-party plaintiff. The Department shall file and
3
serve its complaint no later than thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this Order, or
Friday, December 17, 2021. Thereafter the requisite parties shall respond to said third-party
complaint within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service.
SO ORDERED, this 18th day of November 2021.
/s/ W. Louis Sands
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?