Eddie J. Craig, a Texas resident, was injured in a January 29, 1999, truck collision in Fulton County, Georgia in the course of his employment with Tyson Foods, Inc. As of April 3, 2002, Tyson Foods had paid Craig $97,840.43 in injury-related benefits under the Texas workers’ compensation law. Texas Labor Code Ann. § 401.001 et seq. Craig and his wife brought a negligence action in Fulton County against the driver and owner of the other vehicle involved in the collision. Tyson Foods intervened in that action in order to assert a subrogation claim for the workers’ compensation benefits it had paid to Craig. Craig settled his claim against the alleged tortfeasors for $160,000. Of that amount, $97,840.43 was paid into the registry of the trial court pending resolution of Tyson Foods’ subrogation claim. Craig asked the trial court to rule that Tyson Foods was not entitled to any share of the settlement proceeds. Tyson Foods then moved to enforce its subrogation claim. The trial court granted Craig’s motion and denied Tyson Foods’ motion. Tyson Foods appeals from that order and claims the trial court erred in i failing to give full faith and credit to the Texas workers’ compensation statute, and ii finding that Tyson Foods could never prove Craig had been fully compensated under the Georgia workers’ compensation statute. For reasons set forth below, we affirm.
In Sargent Indus. v. Delta Air Lines , 251 Ga. 91 303 SE2d 108 1983, our Supreme Court held that the Georgia workers’ compensation rule of law applies . . . when the injury occurred in Georgia, and the plaintiff was eligible to receive workers’ compensation benefits in Georgia, even though the employment relationship may have been localized in another state and the plaintiff may have been eligible for such benefits in another state. Similarly, “when the underlying situation involves an employee who was injured in one state and qualifies for workers’ compensation benefits in that state but claimed and received benefits in another state, the law of the place of the tort applies.” Citation and emphasis omitted. Maryland Cas. Ins. Co. v. Glomski , 210 Ga. App. 759, 760 437 SE2d 616 1993. Based on this principle, we held in Glomski that an insurer’s subrogation rights were governed by the law of Georgia where Georgia was the place of the alleged tort, notwithstanding that the insurer had made workers’ compensation payments under the laws of Illinois. Id. It follows that because Craig was injured in Georgia, Georgia’s workers’ compensation law, and not Texas law, governs Tyson Foods’ subrogation claim.
