Brian Cafritz Featured on AM Best Podcast Discussing Legal Challenges Related to Restroom Access for Transgender Guests

AM Best, the oldest and most widely recognized provider of ratings, financial data and news with an exclusive insurance industry focus, recently featured KPM’s Brian Cafritz on their “Best’s Directories Insurance Law Podcast.”  Brian has been closely following news and rulings related to restroom access for transgender individuals.  Listen to the podcast here or view the transcript below.  You can follow Brian on Twitter at @briancafritz. John Czuba: Welcome to the “Insurance Law Podcast,” the broadcast about timely and important legal issues effecting the insurance industry. I’m John Czuba, managing editor of Best’s Directory of Recommended Insurance Attorneys. We’re pleased to have with us today attorney Brian Cafritz from KPM LAW in Richmond, Virginia, with additional offices in Fairfax, Norfolk, and Roanoke, Virginia. Brian is a partner in the firm, and helped to expand the firm’s regional defense network. He focuses his practice on the defense of Fortune 500 companies that operate under large self-insured retentions. He co-founded the National Retail and Restaurant Defense Association to promote the education and communication channels of industry leaders and counsel. Brian was elected to the first two terms as the association’s first president. He is also the only Virginia attorney selected to IALDA, a defense network dedicated to the defense of the amusements and leisure industry. We’re very pleased to have you with us today, Brian. Brian Cafritz:  Thank you very much, proud to be here. John:  Today’s topic is on legal issues pertaining to transgender restrooms, and Brian this has been a very topical issue of late, can you comment on which states have been the most impacted? How common is...

Virginia Court of Appeals Declines to “Infer” the Weight and Bulk of a Stroller Caused or Contributed to Workplace Accident

Written by Chris Wilson, Esq. Edited by Rachel Riordan, Esq. A recent unpublished opinion by the Virginia Court of Appeals provides important guidance on what a claimant must show to prove that an injury “arose out of” his or her employment. In United Airlines, Inc. v. Taylor, No. 1169-15-4, 2016 Va. App. LEXIS 72 (Va. Ct. App. March 15, 2016), the claimant’s work accident was found non-compensable despite the fact that he lost his balance and fell down several stairs while carrying items totaling around 35 pounds. This case should serve as a reminder that the claimant must show not only that he was injured at work, but that “a condition of the workplace either caused or contributed” to the injury. See Southside Virginia Training Ctr./Commonwealth of Virginia v. Shell, 20 Va. App. 199, 202, 455 S.E. 2d 761, 763 (1995). In other words, the fact that the claimant is carrying something at the time of his injury does not necessarily mean the accident is compensable. In Taylor, the claimant was employed as a ramp agent for United Airlines. His job duties included unloading baggage and other cargo from aircraft. On the day of the accident he was walking up a set of metal stairs while holding two strollers under his arms. Taylor estimated the stroller in his right hand weighed approximately thirty pounds, while the stroller in his left hand weighed about five pounds. As he was walking up the stairs his right knee “popped,” causing him to fall down the stairs and onto his back. His knee then popped back into place. Taylor admitted that the stairs...

KPM LAW Announces New Hires

KPM LAW is proud to announce the addition of several new attorneys to the Fairfax and Roanoke offices.  Please join us in welcoming Lauren, Lindsey and Ryan to our practice.             “Our legal talent is the strongest it has been in the 25 year history of the firm and it keeps getting stronger with each new hire,” remarked firm President Chip Kalbaugh. “The level of intellectual capital within our firm blows my mind. The addition of Lauren Gibbons, Ryan Walsh, and Lindsey Hunt brings geographical diversity, with an international flair. Our goal is to assemble talented lawyers who can see and feel cases from all possible angles. The law is the law, but individuals’ experiences help shape our unique approach to case strategy and resolution. When we say ‘One Firm. Your Firm’ we mean it. You get all of us.” Please visit our associates bio page by clicking on the photos above to learn more about each of...

Maryland Workers’ Compensation Law Regarding Employee v. Independent Contractor

When a worker is injured and there is a question as to whether the employee is an independent contractor or an employee of the direct employer or general contractor, several factors need to be considered to determine whether an employer/employee relationship exists. If the facts of the case demonstrate that the worker is an independent contractor, the general contractor may not be held liable for the worker’s injury. The court has recently addressed the factors that are considered to determine whether an employer/employee relationship exists and has noted that the key consideration is the level of control the employer has over the employee. Maryland Labor and Employment § 9-202 provides that “An individual, including a minor, is presumed to be a covered employee while in the service of an employer under an express or implied contract of apprenticeship or hire.” “To overcome the presumption of covered employment, an employer shall establish that the individual performing services is an independent contractor in accordance with the common law or is specifically exempted from covered employment under this subtitle.” Maryland case law has addressed the factors which establish an employer/employee relationship under the traditional common law test. A worker will be deemed a “covered employee” unless it is established that he or she is an “independent contractor” under the common law rules. The courts have considered the following factors to determine the existence of an employer/employee relationship (1) the power to select and hire the employee, (2) the payment of wages, (3) the power to discharge, (4) the power to control the employee’s conduct, and (5) whether the work is part of...