by KPMLAW | Mar 21, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
KPM LAW continues to benefit from the talent of a bright and eager crop of young attorneys who bring to the firm fresh ideas, who enhance the firm’s tried and true experience, and who represent our next generation of leaders. It is with great pride that we announce Matt Daly and Jessica Relyea’s promotion to partner. Both have proven legal acumen in addition to an exceptional capacity for embracing new projects and initiatives, developing meaningful business relationships, and driving the firm forward. Please join us in celebrating their well-deserved promotions and wishing them continued success at KPM...
by KPMLAW | Mar 21, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized, Updates
Written by Andrew Willis, Esq. Edited by Rachel Riordan, Esq. Workers’ compensation claims involving office chairs are beginning to rise as an increasing number of workers in Virginia and across the U.S. move into sedentary jobs, including claimants working from home. This article looks at the state of the law in Virginia on work accidents involving office chairs and provides guidance on what you can ask during your recorded statement to help make the right decision when it comes to accepting or denying a claim involving an office chair. The Law The Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission has decided a number of cases involving injuries to claimants who sat in wheeled office chairs. The issue often litigated with office chairs is whether the accident “arises out of” the employment. The mere happening of an accident at the workplace, not caused by any work-related risk or significant work-related exertion, is not compensable. An injury “arises out of” the employment if there is a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is required to be performed and the resulting injury. As with cases involving claimants who simply fall while walking, the Commission generally requires some kind of defect or hazardous condition before an injury involving an office chair can be compensable. Specifically, the Commission has held that the mere “fact that [a] chair had wheels, of itself, is not sufficient to establish compensability.” Bell v. Sheetz, JCN VA00000401489 (March 29, 2013). In Baker v. B&H Construction, VWC File No. 216-56-07 (April 18, 2005), a claimant suffered a compensable injury when the wheels of his rolling office chair became tangled in...
by KPMLAW | Feb 23, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized
Written by Gary Reinhardt, Esq. Have you used a Transportation Network Company (TNC) yet? That is the fancy, statutory name for “ride share” companies such as Uber and Lyft. As most are aware, a TNC relies on its drivers to use their personal vehicle. The prospective passenger contacts a TNC driver through the use of a smartphone app. From there, the driver acts as a typical taxicab although personal experience has shown these cars to be cleaner and the driver to be nicer. Payment for the ride is made via credit or debit card already entered into the TNC’s digital platform. The TNC concept is fairly new and courts have yet to sort out the morass of legal and insuring issues these ride shares cause. State statutes set out a comprehensive regulatory framework for these companies, including requirements that essentially label these TNC vehicles and require minimum insurance limits. Starting with Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-2099.48, the Virginia legislature sets out what a TNC and its driver must do to operate in the Commonwealth. This statute requires that all TNC drivers carry “proof of coverage under each in-force TNC insurance policy, which may be displayed as part of the digital platform, and each in-force personal automobile insurance policy covering the vehicle.” This same statute limits a driver from driving more than 13 hours during any 24 hour period. The statute also requires that a TNC vehicle have a different color decal on the license plate, the year decal that shows you have renewed the vehicle registration. Virginia TNC vehicles will have a black decal with yellow “VA” letters and...
by KPMLAW | Feb 23, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized
Written by Lauren Gibbons, Esq. Edited by Janeen Koch, Esq. Although the autonomous vehicle was merely a cartoon concept when “The Jetsons” aired on television over 50 years ago, the time of the autonomous vehicle has finally arrived. While fully autonomous vehicles are not a common mode of transportation just yet, their operation is not far into the future. Currently, several major car manufacturers have implemented automated features (i.e. automated parking and automatic emergency braking) which puts technology well on the road to fully autonomous vehicle operation. These technological developments pose major questions for liability analysis in motor vehicle collision cases. There are countless motor tort cases filed, settled, and/or litigated every year. These cases generally center around the legal theories of driver negligence, contributory negligence, and assumption of the risk, which are all dependent on human perception, acts, and/or omissions. Based on the evolution of fully human-operated vehicles to computer-controlled vehicles, it is inevitable that the auto tort litigation process will drastically change from the current system we have now. Several states, including California, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, and Tennessee, and Washington, D.C., have already enacted legislation addressing the use of autonomous vehicles. These laws, however, seem to avoid acknowledging partially autonomous vehicles and the liability implications that stem from hybrid human-machine operated vehicles. On May 30, 2013, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation issued a preliminary report about automated vehicles. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles (2013). The NHTSA is constantly updating this Statement as a guide for development of standards and regulations...
by KPMLAW | Feb 23, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized
Written by Jessica Gorman, Esq. Edited by Rachel Riordan, Esq. What additional injuries an employer and carrier may be responsible for under the compensable consequence doctrine or chain of causation rule You have an accepted accident for which an injured worker has injured his left ankle. While recuperating from surgery on his left ankle, his ankle gave way causing a right knee injury. Are you responsible for the right knee injury? The answer is yes. Subsequently, that right knee injury causes the injured worker to fall causing a new injury to the right knee. Are you responsible for that new knee injury? The answer may be no as a consequence of a compensable consequence, which is not covered under the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act. In Virginia, the doctrine of compensable consequence “is well established and has been in existence for many years.” Williams Indus., v. Wagoner, 24 Va. App. 181, 186, 480 S.E.2d 788, 790 (1997). This doctrine provides the standard that “when a primary injury under the Workers’ Compensation Act is shown to have arisen out of the course of employment, every natural consequence that flows from the injury is compensable if it is a direct and natural result of a primary injury.” Leonard v. Arnold, 218 Va. 210, 237 S.E.2d 97 (1977). Specifically, any such secondary injury is related as it if occurred in the course of and arising out of the injured workers’ employment. Bartholow Drywall Co. v. Hill, 12 Va. App. 790, 794, 407 S.E.2d 1, 3 (1991). This doctrine is also known as the chain of causation rule and provides and states somewhat differently...
