Mother appeals denial of death benefits in Randolph County case

ATLANTA — On the Georgia Supreme Court calendar for oral arguments Monday is an appeal from a Cuthbert woman who contends a state statute barring her from receiving her son’s death benefit is unconstitutional.

Louise Shorter Barzey is appealing a decision handed down in October in Randolph County Superior Court in which the court denied her death benefits claim in the July 2010 death of her 37-year-old son, Deron Shorter. According to the facts of the case in a Supreme Court summary released Thursday, Shorter was declared dead at the scene when the mower he was operating crashed into a ditch and overturned on him.

Shorter, who was a Cuthbert firefighter for 13 years before moving to the public works department, was single and had no dependents. Barzey, his sole heir, sought Shorter’s death benefits under the state’s workers compensation law. Cuthbert officials argued she was not entitled to the benefits because, under the act, death benefits for a worker killed on the job can only be paid to dependents, while a worker with no dependent is only entitled to have funeral expenses covered.

Barzey, who was not a dependent of Shorter, said the distinction between an heir and a dependent violated her constitutional right to equal protection. The city asked the Superior Court for a summary judgment dismissing her claim, which the court granted last October.

Barzey is represented by Robert White, who contends the trial court erred by granting the summary judgment before considering Barzey’s response, which was filed within the 30-day period. The plaintiff also contends the death benefit statute conflicts with both statutory and common law, and creates a barrier for single employees with work-related death claims that is not faced by married employees.

“Moreover, it has annulled a mother’s sole heir at law entitlement under every comparable death compensation statute where her unmarried child died as a consequence of varying causes that require legal redress,” White said in the appeal. “What we are witnessing in this case is a blatant legislative attempt to insulate commercialism at the expense of individual rights and there is no polite way to confront it other than by the strongest advocacy required of counsel for the victim.”

City Attorney Franklin Coleman IV argues the Supreme Court should dismiss the appeal because the plaintiff failed to show how and where the law violated the Constitution, instead making “vague reference to equal protection and due process,” and that the law does not conflict with common law or infringe on constitutional rights. The city contends that a premature ruling on a motion that does no harm is not a reversible error, and that no harm was done to Barzey as a result of the Superior Court ruling.

Death benefits under workers comp, Coleman contends, are intended only “to compensate beneficiaries for their injury, which is the loss of support resulting from the death of the deceased worker.”

The case is one of several the high court is scheduled to hear when its session gets under way at 10 a.m. in Atlanta. Most rulings come within six months of the oral arguments.