McKay v. Inalfa Roof Systems, Inc. et al., and the Fine Tuning of the Rycroft Defense

McKay v. Inalfa Roof Systems, Inc. et al., and the Fine Tuning of the Rycroft Defense

By Bryce McCarter

Introduction

The Rycroft defense has long been considered a strong protection for employers handling workers’ compensation claims involving pre-existing medical conditions of their employees. The Georgia Court of Appeals recently issued a groundbreaking decision in McKay v. Inalfa Roof Systems, Inc., 374 Ga. App. 526 (2025), reshaping how the long-standing Rycroft Defense may be applied in workers’ compensation cases going forward.

McKay v. Inalfa Roof Systems, Inc. et al.

The Rycroft Defense originated in Georgia Elec. Co. v. Rycroft, 259 Ga. 155 (1989), where the Georgia Supreme Court established that the following factors must be present before a false statement in an employment application will bar benefits:The employee must have knowingly and willfully made a false representation as to his physical condition. The employer must have relied upon the false representation, and this reliance must have been a substantial factor in the hiring. There must have been a causal connection between the false representation and the injury.

In McKay the claimant sustained serious injuries in a 2012 accident, including spinal cord compression fractures and multiple other traumas. When hired by Inalfa in late 2020, she falsely answered no to questions about prior injuries on her post-hire questionnaire, failing to disclose her 2012 injuries. The Board found these false representations were knowing and willful.

On June 11, 2021, McKay injured her back at work and was out until September 9, 2021. During her absence and upon her return, McKay clearly mentioned the 2012 incident at work and told her supervisor about her prior back injury and that the June 11 incident may have aggravated her pre-existing condition. Significantly, Inalfa retained McKay in her position with full knowledge of both her prior injury and her false representation about it. On September 14, 2021, McKay sustained a second work injury to her neck and back.

The Court of Appeals held that while McKay’s first injury on June 11 falls squarely within the Rycroft defense, the employer’s retention of McKay after learning of her false representation waived its right to assert the defense against her September 14 injury claim.

Practical Implications

McKay creates significant practical changes for Georgia workers’ compensation practice. For employers, the decision requires enhanced due diligence when discovering false representations on employment applications, as continued employment may waive Rycroft Defense rights for future injuries. Employers must now document decisions to retain employees despite discovered misrepresentations and consider whether immediate termination is warranted to preserve defense rights.

Workers’ compensation defense counsel must now analyze employer conduct and knowledge timelines before asserting the Rycroft Defense. The defense now has temporal limitations, potentially applying to some injuries but not others depending on when the employer discovered the false representation and how they responded. Claims handling procedures must incorporate evaluation of employer knowledge and post-discovery conduct in assessing Rycroft Defense viability.

Bryce McCarter is an associate in the Atlanta office of Hall Booth Smith, where he focuses his practice on workers’ compensation matters. He can be reached at bmccarter@hallboothsmith.com.

Share This Article: