With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and completely compensated.”). 13 See OCGA § 34-9-11.1 (b), (c); see also Canal Ins. Co., 256 Ga. App. at 869 (1) (“OCGA § 34-9-11.1 is purely a statutory right of subrogation and requires that the subrogation lien be enforced against the third-party tor 2 (2) (“[The insurer] did not intervene in [the employee’s] lawsuit against [the third-party tortfeasor]. Instead, [the insurer] voluntarily relinquished its right to participate in the action to protect and enforce its subrogation lien. Nothing in OCGA § 34-9-11.1 gives [the insurer] the right to now file an independent action against [the third-party tortfeasor] for failing to pay the tort judgment to [the insurer], rather than to [the employee], the plaintiff.”). 16 OCGA § 34-9-11.1 (a)-(e); see Canal Ins. Co., 256 Ga. App. at 866 (<HOLDING>). Cf. Ga. Elect. Mem. Corp. v. Hi-Ranger, Inc.,

A: recognizing a tort action when employee was dismissed for filing a workers compensation claim
B: holding that workers compensation insurer was required to intervene in injured employees tort action to protect and enforce its subrogation lien and could not file a separate action
C: holding that notwithstanding fact that employer brought suit in its own name pursuant to ocga  349111 c only for the liquidated amount that had been paid to the employee in workers compensation benefits after employee failed to file his own tort action within one year of injury employee was not precluded from bringing his own separate action to recover for personal injuries and loss of consortium but noting that employee received notice of employers suit only after filing his own action suggesting that court in which employers action was pending had wrongly denied the employees motion to intervene to which motion employer had objected noting that if employee had not moved to intervene in other action employees separate action would have been barred by laches and holding that thirdparty tortfeasor could move for mandatory joinder of the employer in the employees action
D: holding that carrier was entitled to intervene as of right where the states workers compensation law permitted subrogation of a compensation carrier
B.