MILLER, P. J., BROWN and GOSS, JJ.
February 7, 2016, an explosion occurred at a chicken feed
manufacturing plant in Rockmart ("Rockmart Mill")
that is owned and controlled by JCG Farms of Alabama, LLC
("JCG Farms"). The explosion seriously injured
Tyler Morgan, who was working at the Rockmart Mill as a
control room operator at the time. Morgan sued JCG Farms,
inter alia, for negligence. After Morgan filed a motion for
partial summary judgment, JCG Farms moved to withdraw any of
its responses to Morgan's request for admission stating
that Morgan was not its employee. JCG Farms appeals from the
trial court's order denying the motion to withdraw
admissions in judicio and granting summary judgment in favor
of Morgan as to JCG Farms' affirmative defense under the
Workers' Compensation Act. For the following reasons, we
January 12, 2017, Morgan filed this premises liability action
against JCG Farms as the owner of the Rockmart Mill property.
Morgan's complaint alleged that JCG Farms was the owner
of the Rockmart Mill property and that Morgan and other
injured workers were on the premises as invitees. JCG Farms
filed an answer acknowledging ownership and control of the
feed mill, but asserting that the Workers' Compensation
Act provides the exclusive remedy for Morgan. The exclusive
remedy provision of OCGA § 34-9-11 applies only if JCG
Farms was Morgan's employer. See OCGA § 34-9-11 (a).
Accord Champion v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp. of Delaware,
Inc., 286 Ga.App. 334, 338 (c) (649 S.E.2d 329) (2007)
("It is well settled that an injured employee's sole
and exclusive remedy is under the Workers' Compensation
Act where the injury arises out of and in the scope of
employment"). Morgan argues that the Workers'
Compensation Act exclusive remedy does not apply to him
because he is an employee of JCG Foods, not JCG
record shows that the Rockmart Mill is a chicken feed
manufacturing plan owned and controlled by JCG Farms. JCG
Foods of Alabama, Inc. is another company in a complex
corporate structure of their parent company, Koch Foods, Inc.
Koch Foods produces and processes chicken for commercial
distribution, and the various corporate entities under its
control operate different aspects of chicken production.
Although JCG Farms and JCG Foods are part of the same
corporate structure, there is no dispute that they operate
independently and have separate budgets, assets, and employer
the litigation, JCG Farms has admitted that Morgan was an
employee of JCG Foods, as opposed to JCG Farms. JCG Farms
admitted as much in its answer, in its responses to
Plaintiff's Request for Interrogatories, and in its
responses to Morgan's Request for
Admissions. JCG Farms admitted in briefing before the
trial court that its responses to the Requests for Admission
were based upon "information provided by the Human
Resources and Risk Management departments regarding, among
other things, the corporate structure of Koch Foods, Inc.,
the operations of the Rockmart feed mill, and the employment
relationship between the corporate entities involved in the
operation of the Rockmart mill and the workers at the
mill." Further, paystubs for checks issued to Morgan in
January/February 2016 identify JCG Foods as his employer, and
JCG Foods sent Morgan a W-2 form and reported Morgan as an
employee to the IRS.
December 4, 2017, Morgan filed a motion in which he sought
partial summary judgment as to JCG Farms' workers
compensation exclusive remedy defense. Morgan argued that JCG
Farms admitted in judicio that it was not Morgan's
employer. JCG Farms then filed a motion to withdraw
admissions. The trial court denied JCG Farms' motion to
withdraw the admissions, and granted Morgan's motion for
partial summary judgment.
Farms argues that the trial court erred by denying its motion
to withdraw its admission in judicio that Morgan was its
admission has been made for purposes of OCGA § 9-11-36,
the matter is "conclusively established unless the
court, on motion, permits withdrawal or amendment of the
admission." OCGA § 9-11-36 (b). A trial court
may permit withdrawal or amendment when  the presentation
of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and 
the party who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the
court that the withdrawal or amendment will prejudice him in
maintaining his action or defense on the merits.
Id. (citing OCGA § 9-11-36 (b). This statutory
provision vests the trial court with broad discretion to
permit withdrawal of the admission, and the trial court's
ruling on this issue will only be reversed upon a showing of
abuse of discretion. Turner v. Mize, 280 Ga.App.
256, 257 (1) (633 S.E.2d 641) (2006).
the movant satisfies the court on the first prong, the burden
is on the respondent to satisfy the second prong. Both prongs
must be established[.]" (Citation and punctuation
omitted.) Fulton County v. SOCO Contracting Co.,
Inc., 343 Ga.App. 889, 897 (2) (a) (808 S.E.2d 891)
(2017). The first requirement of this test
is not perfunctorily satisfied. . . and the desire to have a
trial, standing alone, is not sufficient to satisfy the test.
If the burden of proof on the subject matter of the request
for admission is on the requestor, the movant is required to
show the admitted request either can be refuted by admissible
evidence having a modicum of credibility or is ...