DOYLE, Judge.

After her husband, Sergeant Hoyt Teasley of the Fulton County Sheriff's Department, was shot and killed by Brian Nichols, Deborah Teasley sued Fulton County Sheriff Myron Freeman; Deputies Chelisa Lee, Gary Reid, Lucious Johnson, Alphonso Wright, Twantta Clerk-Mathis, Jerome Dowdell, Paul Tamer, and Grantley White; the Fulton County's Sheriff's Office; the Fulton County Board of Commissioners; and APA Security, Inc.1 The trial court ultimately dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act. Deborah Teasley filed this appeal contending that the trial court erred by ruling that (1) Sheriff Freeman was Sergeant Teasley's employer for purposes of the Act, and (2) no unique duty was owed to Sergeant Teasley that rendered inapplicable the Act's exclusive remedy provision.2 For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

The case arises from the events of March 11, 2005, when Brian Nichols escaped from the custody of Fulton County deputies at the Fulton County Courthouse. For the purposes of this appeal, the material facts are undisputed and essentially the same as those summarized in other cases arising from the same events.3 In this case, the injuries allegedly arose when Nichols shot and killed Sergeant Teasley after he pursued Nichols out of the courthouse and engaged Nichols on the street. Deborah Teasley, Sergeant Teasley's surviving spouse, filed suit on behalf of herself, their minor children, and Sergeant Teasley's estate, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for wrongful death, emotional distress, and loss of consortium. Following limited discovery and other pretrial rulings by the trial court not challenged here, the plaintiff's claims were dismissed, giving rise to this appeal.4

Because the dismissal was premised only on the resolution of legal issues, we conduct a de novo review of those issues, construing the complaint's factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff.5

1. Teasley contends that the trial court erred by ruling that Sheriff Freeman was Sergeant Teasley's employer for purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act. We disagree.

Under the Act,

Therefore, where the Act applies, "it provides the employee's exclusive remedy against his employer"7 and precludes recovery on a tort claim by an injured employee against his employer.8

In prior opinions addressing the same background events, this Court has held that (i) Sheriff Freeman was not a county employee for workers' compensation purposes,9 and (ii) Sheriff Freeman was not a state employee for workers' compensation purposes.10 These conclusions were based in large part on the fact that sheriffs are defined in the Georgia Constitution as elected "county officers."11 With respect to the relationship between a sheriff and his deputies, however, neither opinion addressed whether a sheriff is considered his deputy's employer for purposes of the Act.

The Act defines "employer" to include "the State of Georgia and all departments, instrumentalities, and authorities thereof; [and] each county within the state, ..."12 While the definition does not specifically enumerate what aspects of a "county" are included, it is logical in this context that a sheriff would be deemed a deputy's employer by virtue of (i) his status as a county officer, and (ii) the Act's treatment of counties as employers. "[A]s a county officer, the sheriff's budget and accounts are subject to the authority of the county commission, which can amend or change estimates of required expenditures presented by the county officer. The county commission has the power to cut the budget of an elected constitutional county officer...."13 Thus, it is self-evident that a sheriff is not an entity entirely separate from the county for all purposes, rather he is an elected officer operating within the framework of a county as composed by the Constitution and relevant statutes.14 The General Assembly has made clear its intent that the Act "shall be liberally construed only for the purpose of bringing employers and employees within the provisions of [the Act] and to provide protection for both."15 Giving effect to this directive, we can only conclude that a sheriff, as a county officer, is his deputy's employer for purposes of the Act.

This is consistent with the fact that deputies are clearly employees under the Act, which defines employee to include "employees of elected salaried county officials. ..."16 It is nonsensical to conclude that a deputy is a sheriff's employee under the Act, but a sheriff is not his deputy's employer under the Act.17

Furthermore, as pointed out by the trial court, our statutory and case law consistently treat sheriffs as the employer of their deputies.18 Sheriffs alone are authorized to appoint and discharge their deputies,19 deputies serve as the sheriff's agent,20 and deputies have no duties other than those of the sheriff.21 Thus, courts have held that "deputy sheriffs are deemed employees of the sheriff, not the county"22 for vicarious liability purposes. In the same sense, a sheriff is the employer of his deputies.23

We are cognizant that certain cases make a distinction between the sheriff and the county for certain purposes, but those cases do not conflict with our conclusion that a sheriff is part of the county as an employer under the Act. The cases deal with questions of whether a county commission controls the sheriff's execution of his duties (it does not),24 or whether the county, as opposed to the sheriff, is responsible for the acts of a sheriff's deputy (it is not).25 In making those distinctions, the holdings are entirely consistent with the notion that a sheriff is the employer of his deputies, and they are not fatal to our conclusion that a sheriff, as an elected county officer, is nevertheless a part of the county under a liberal construction of the Act.26 In essence, a sheriff is separate from the county for purposes of directing the work of his deputies, but this does not change the fact that sheriffs are county officers. Therefore, in light of the constitutional, statutory, and common law framework, we conclude that sheriffs, as county officers, fall within the definition of "employer" for purposes of the Act.

2. Teasley also contends that the Act does not apply to this scenario because a sheriff and his deputies have a special duty to other deputies that renders the Act inapplicable. We disagree.

Teasley relies on Downey v. Bexley,27 which created an exception to the exclusive remedy provision in the Act and held as follows:

However, that case and its reasoning apply to cases of professional malpractice in the context of a fiduciary duty, and in practice it has only been applied to the relationship between physician and patient.29

By contrast, in Clark v. Williamson,30 this Court addressed a Downey argument in the context of a deputy injured by another and explicitly held that a deputy's superior officer within the sheriff's office did not owe a unique duty to an injured subordinate deputy that would render inapplicable the Act's exclusive remedy provision:

We find this analysis persuasive here, thus the trial court did not err in dismissing the plaintiff's claims on the basis that the Workers' Compensation Act provided her exclusive remedy.

Judgment affirmed.

ANDREWS, P.J., and ELLINGTON, J., concur.