by KPMLAW | May 24, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
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...
by KPMLAW | Apr 25, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized, Updates
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 A recent unpublished opinion by the Virginia Court of Appeals provides important guidance on what a claimant must show to prove that an injury “arose out of” his or her employment.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...
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...
by KPMLAW | Jan 18, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized, Updates
What should an employer do when an employee announces plans to retire on a definite date? Get the employee a gold watch? Plan a luncheon? Maybe the best answer, at least from a workers’ compensation perspective, is to bid him adieu, immediately. A nightmarish situation can develop if an employee announces his retirement to be effective on a definite date in the future, and then gets injured on the job. This factual scenario was recently addressed by the Supreme Court of Virginia in McKeller v. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. , 2015 Va. Lexis 14. In McKellar, on April 1, 2010 the Claimant advised his employer that he was retiring effective May 1, 2010. On April 15, 2010 the Claimant sustained a compensable injury by accident. The Claimant was placed on restricted duty through the end of April. He retired on May 1, 2010. However, sometime after his retirement the Claimant was found to be totally disabled. The Claimant then filed a claim with the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission, seeking temporary total disability benefits. The Deputy Commissioner awarded compensation and medical benefits, finding that although the Claimant was retired his total incapacity entitled him to benefits. The Full Commission, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed the award of medical benefits but reversed the award of compensation, reasoning that the wage loss would have occurred regardless of his compensable injury. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision from the Commission, concluding that the Claimant’s retirement, not his injury, caused his loss of compensation because the record was devoid of evidence that the Claimant sought or held income-producing employment after his retirement and...
by KPMLAW | May 18, 2015 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized
Being served with a garnishment summons that orders an employer to garnish the wages of its employee is a standard business practice for most companies. However, under Virginia law, if a garnishee fails to comply with a garnishment summons, then judgment may be entered against the garnishee. Va. Code. 8.01-516.1. While most companies are probably familiar with this penalty, the way in which a garnishment summons is served in Virginia is different, and more expansive, than the normal rules governing service of process. If a business is not familiar with Virginia’s service laws for garnishment summons, it can quickly find itself responsible for the wages it failed to garnish. In Virginia, service on a domestic or foreign corporation is most commonly effectuated by personal service on any officer, director or registered agent. Va. Code Ann. 8.01- 299; Va. Code Ann. 8.01-301. In certain circumstances a foreign corporation may also be served through personal service of an agent within the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Virginia State Corporation Commission, the Secretary of the Commonwealth, by personal service outside the Commonwealth of Virginia, or by order of publication. Va. Code Ann. 8.01-301. However, in a garnishment proceeding, Virginia has eased the burden and broadened the ways service may be properly effectuated. Service in a garnishment proceeding is governed by Va. Code Ann. 8.01-513, which states that when effectuating service on a corporation, the summons shall be served upon an officer, an employee designated by the corporation, or if no such person is designated or cannot be found, upon a managing employee. Va. Code Ann. 8.01-513. Effectuating service on an LLC must be...
