What burden of proof applies when an insurer alleges malingering based solely on social media in Macon?
The burden stays where the underlying issue puts it, and a social media post doesn’t shift it. The party claiming a change in condition has to establish it, as the annotated code reports from Fortson v. American Surety Co., 92 Ga. App. 625 (1955). An insurer alleging a knowingly false statement has to show that under O.C.G.A. § 34-9-18(b). So calling a worker a malingerer is a conclusion, and the post is just evidence of it.
Who proves what
| Issue | Who carries it |
|---|---|
| Original compensability | Claimant |
| Change in condition for the better | Party claiming it |
| Benefits reinstated after a failed work attempt | Employer, § 34-9-240(b)(1) |
| Willful misconduct or similar forfeiture | Party claiming it, § 34-9-17(c) |
| Civil penalty for false statements | Must be knowing and intentional, § 34-9-18(b) |
What a post can and can’t show
A post has to be authenticated under O.C.G.A. § 24-9-901. Offered against the worker, the worker’s own words are an admission under § 24-8-801(d)(2). A photo needs more:
- When was it taken, as opposed to posted?
- Is that the worker?
- What was the actual effort?
- Was it within the restrictions?
- What happened afterward?
A photo of a fishing trip from before the injury, posted later, proves nothing about the disability.
Why thin proof still has to be answered
A decision needs only evidence supporting it, because the annotated code reports an “any evidence” standard of court review. An unanswered post could support a finding. Testimony that explains the post, and a doctor who has seen it, are the answers.
Accounts
Posts may be requested in discovery under § 34-9-102(d)(1). Deleting them after a claim can raise a preservation problem under Phillips v. Harmon, 297 Ga. 386 (2015), and Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Koch, 303 Ga. 336 (2018).
General information about Georgia law as of November 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.