Lilienthal v. JLK, Inc.

Background of the Case: What Happened in Lilienthal?

The case began with a preschool teacher who was hurt on the job. In July 2019, while working at a preschool, the teacher slipped on a child’s blanket and fell, injuring her left shoulder and both knees. After the accident, she notified her employer and asked to see a doctor. In response, the school’s owner handed her a photocopy of the company’s “panel of physicians” – a list of doctors the employer had chosen for work-related injuries. The school’s director even went ahead and scheduled an appointment for her with one of the doctors on that list (the one closest to the teacher’s home). The injured teacher wasn’t told she had a right to pick a different doctor from the list, and she later testified that she didn’t realize she could choose someone else.

Over the next several months, the teacher was treated by the panel doctor chosen for her. Unfortunately, her injuries – especially to her knee – did not improve. Seeking better care, she went on her own to see a specialist outside of the employer’s panel, who eventually recommended knee surgery. Armed with this medical opinion, the teacher asked to switch her authorized treating physician to the specialist she had found. This request for a change of physician was essentially a request to go outside the employer’s approved list because she felt the panel doctor’s care was inadequate.

The employer (and its workers’ compensation insurer) resisted this change. They argued that the teacher should continue treatment within the panel of physicians. The dispute turned on a technical but crucial question: Had the employer met its obligation to make the panel of physicians available to the employee as required by law? In particular, was the panel posted in a “prominent” place at the workplace, as Georgia law requires, so that employees like the teacher could easily know about it and use it? This seemingly small detail – where and how the list of doctors was posted – became the central issue of the case.

Georgia’s “Panel of Physicians” Requirement

Under Georgia’s workers’ compensation law, employers must provide prompt and reasonable medical care to employees who get hurt at work (OCGA § 34-9-200(a)). One way employers fulfill this duty is by maintaining a panel of physicians – a list of at least six doctors or clinics that an injured worker can choose from for treatment (OCGA § 34-9-201(b)(1)). However, simply having a list of doctors on file isn’t enough. The law lays out specific steps employers must take to ensure injured workers actually know about and can use the panel of physicians.

Importantly, Georgia law requires the employer to post the panel of physicians “in prominent places upon the business premises.” In the words of the court, “Under OCGA § 34-9-201(c), an employer is required to post this list, or panel, of physicians ‘in prominent places upon the business premises.’ It is also required to take reasonable measures to ensure that employees understand the function of the panel and the employee’s right to select a physician from the panel in the event of a workplace injury, and that the employee is given assistance in contacting a panel physician.” In short, the employer must put the list of doctors in a highly visible spot (or spots) at work and make sure workers know what the list is for, how to use it, and help them reach a doctor on the list when they’re hurt.

Georgia law also provides a strong incentive for employers to follow these rules. If an employer doesn’t fully comply with the panel-of-physicians requirements – for example, if the list isn’t properly posted or if employees aren’t informed of their rights – then the injured worker gets to choose any doctor they want, and the employer (or its insurance) has to pay for it. As the court noted, “If the employer fails to comply with any of the procedures for selection of physicians set forth in OCGA § 34-9-201(c), an employee may select any physician to render service at the expense of the employer.” In other words, when employers don’t uphold their obligations, the law shifts the power to the employee to pick a doctor of their choice, even if that doctor is outside the employer’s list.

This legal framework is designed to protect workers. It ensures that employees are aware of their options for medical treatment after a workplace injury. The panel of physicians system gives the employer some control over medical costs and quality by pre-selecting reputable doctors, but it balances that control by guaranteeing the worker the right to choose among those doctors. And if the employer tries to game the system by hiding the panel or not informing workers, the consequence is that the worker is free to go anywhere for care, at the employer’s expense. The Lilienthal case tests how strictly these requirements will be enforced.

The Problem: Was the Panel Properly Posted?

In Lilienthal, the key question was whether the employer (the preschool, JLK, Inc.) had posted its panel of physicians in a “prominent” place at the workplace. The facts uncovered during the case were problematic. The employer did have a panel of six doctors – provided by its workers’ comp insurance carrier – but where they posted this list raised concerns. It turned out the panel of physicians was hung inside the school’s Resource Room, which was essentially an art supply closet in the main hallway. This was not a room employees frequented often; in fact, the injured teacher said she rarely ever went into that closet because it didn’t have supplies she needed.

To make matters worse, the Resource Room was usually kept locked when not in use. The only way to get in was to retrieve a key that was kept in a separate office drawer. And when the closet was closed, the lights inside were typically off, making it hard to notice anything through the door’s small window. In short, an employee would not stumble across the panel of doctors unless they knew exactly where to look and went through multiple steps (get the key, unlock the door, turn on the light) just to see the notice.

The employer argued that, despite these hurdles, the panel’s location was acceptable because employees could access it if they really wanted to. They pointed out that the teacher had signed a form during orientation stating the panel was located in the Resource Room (though the form’s clarity was questionable, and the teacher testified no one actually showed her the posted list). The company’s stance was essentially: the panel was available – it wasn’t impossible to find – so they believed they complied with the law’s intent. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who first heard the case initially agreed with the employer’s view. The ALJ noted that while the break room might have been a better choice, just because the Resource Room wasn’t the “best” place didn’t mean it was entirely inadequate. In the ALJ’s eyes, the fact that the panel was technically accessible (since an employee could ask for the key and go see it) was enough to satisfy the requirement.

However, the injured worker (Ms. Lilienthal) disagreed and pressed the issue on appeal. She argued that “accessible” is not the same as “prominent.” Having to hunt down a key in a different room to find a hidden list of doctors is a far cry from a conspicuous posting that all employees can easily see. The case eventually made its way to the Georgia Court of Appeals, which had to decide what the law really demands when it says the panel must be posted in “prominent places.”

The Court’s Decision: Accessibility vs. Prominence

The Georgia Court of Appeals sided with the injured worker. The court found that the lower decisions had applied the wrong standard by focusing on accessibility instead of prominence. In a detailed analysis, the Court of Appeals made a few key points:

“Prominent” means noticeable, not just accessible: The court looked at the ordinary meaning of the word “prominent” and noted it means something that stands out and is easily noticeable or conspicuous. It contrasted this with the concept of mere accessibility. A panel of physicians could be accessible in the sense that an employee could get to it if they tried hard enough, yet still not be prominent or visible in any meaningful way. The statute deliberately uses the word “prominent” in the posting requirement, whereas it uses “accessible” in other parts of the law (for example, when referring to the doctors on the panel being geographically accessible to employees). This choice of words is important. As the court explained, “accessibility is not the standard set by OCGA § 34-9-201(c).” In other words, the law demands more than just making the panel reachable – it must be immediately apparent to employees.

The employer’s posting in this case was not prominent: The court had no trouble concluding that keeping the list of doctors inside a locked supply closet was not posting it in a prominent place. To illustrate, the Court described exactly what an employee would have to do to see the panel in this situation: go to the front office, get the key from a locked box in a desk drawer, unlock the closet, and turn on the light – all just to read the panel notice. That’s far from a “readily noticeable” posting. As the court succinctly put it, “The fact that a panel is located in a technically ‘accessible’ location does not mean that it is posted in a ‘prominent,’ conspicuous, or easily seen location.” Here, most employees wouldn’t see the panel in the normal course of their day, which defeats the purpose of the posting requirement. It wasn’t enough that the teacher could have asked for the panel; the onus was on the employer to place it where employees can’t miss it.

Legal misinterpretation by the State Board of Workers’ Compensation: Because the ALJ and the Board had conflated the idea of accessibility with the distinct requirement of prominence, the Court of Appeals found that they applied an incorrect legal standard. This was an error of law. Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the earlier decisions and sent the case back (remanded it) for reconsideration under the proper standard. In practical effect, the Court’s ruling meant that the injured teacher would be allowed to select her own treating physician outside of the employer’s panel, since the employer failed to meet the posting requirements. The decision was a clear statement that Georgia law will be strictly enforced to protect workers’ rights in these situations.

Why Lilienthal Matters for Georgia’s Injured Workers

The ruling reinforces that employers must prominently display information that empowers workers to make choices about their medical care. When you’re hurt on the job, knowing that you have a selection of doctors (and understanding how to access them) is crucial. By insisting on truly conspicuous postings, the court is helping ensure that workers won’t be kept in the dark about their medical options. In this case, the teacher didn’t realize she could refuse the first doctor and pick another from the list because the system failed to inform her properly. Lilienthal helps prevent that kind of scenario from happening to others in the future.

The decision sends a message to employers that they must follow all the workers’ comp rules, not just some of them. Posting the panel of physicians where employees can easily see it (for example, in a break room, near the time clock, or another high-traffic area) isn’t optional – it’s mandatory. If an employer tries to cut corners by hiding the panel in a drawer, a locked room, or an obscure corner, they risk losing control over the medical treatment process. Georgia law essentially penalizes non-compliant employers by letting the injured worker choose any doctor at the employer’s expense. This creates a strong incentive for companies to do it right. Following Lilienthal, we can expect employers to be more diligent about where they post their panels and how they educate their staff about it, to avoid similar disputes.