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 | Nov 16, 2015 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized
Written by Christopher R. Wilson, Esq. Edited by Rachel A. Riordan, Esq. Consider this scenario: while at work a man slips and falls on a wet floor, breaking his arm. In the process, he also chips his dentures, breaks his eyeglasses, and damages a spinal cord stimulator used to treat pre-existing back pain. Which of these injuries or damages is compensable under the Virginia Worker’s Compensation Act? You’re probably very familiar with Virginia’s rules on the compensability of physical injuries, but what about other items damaged in a compensable accident—how do you determine which items the employer has to pay for? The Virginia Worker’s Compensation Commission recently addressed this issue in a case called Quiroz v. Prince William County Schools, JCN VA 00000647619 (Oct. 27, 2014). In Quiroz, just like in the example above, the claimant slipped and fell at work, suffering several compensable injuries. Also damaged in the fall, however, was the claimant’s spinal cord stimulator, which doctors had surgically implanted years earlier to treat failed back syndrome. At the evidentiary hearing, the claimant argued that the employer should be held responsible for repairing or replacing the spinal cord stimulator in addition to the medical treatment for the physical injuries. Virginia Code §65.2-603(A)(2) provides that employers: shall repair, if repairable, or replace dentures, artificial limbs, or other prosthetic or orthotic devices damaged in an accident otherwise compensable under worker’s compensation . . . . The claimant relied on this section to argue that a spinal cord stimulator qualified as a “prosthetic or orthotic device” because it “reduce[d] pain in order to improve the functionality of the spine.” Both...
by KPMLAW | Oct 17, 2015 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized
Written by Andrew Willis, Esq. Edited by Rachel Riordan, Esq. Whether a claimant suffered an “injury by accident” that arises out of and occurs in the course of employment usually takes an undue amount of time during a recorded statement. The factual variations are endless and the black letter law is often blurred, making it hard to know where to focus your questioning. Luckily, lack of timely notice is relatively straightforward and this defense is often neglected during recorded statements. In general, an injured worker needs to notify a supervisor of a work accident within 30 days. If an injured worker fails to give legally sufficient notice, that worker’s claim can be completely barred – even if they sustained a compensable “injury by accident.” In other words, lack of timely is a very powerful defense. It can give you a clear, reliable reason to deny an otherwise compensable claim. What follows are crucial questions to ask about notice during a recorded statement, along with a brief explanation of the law on notice. 1. Who Did You Tell? The Workers’ Compensation Act requires notice to the “employer” pursuant to §65.2-600. Of course, this means some specific person. The cases discuss the need to tell a “foreman,” “superior officer,” or “supervisor.” In other words, telling a co-worker isn’t enough. Get the claimant to identify who the claimant considered to be the “boss” and find out whether the claimant told that person. Also, because there may be more than one supervisor, have the claimant list all supervisors, any other people the claimant believed should be informed of work accidents, as well as...
by KPMLAW | Sep 14, 2015 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized
Editor: Rachel Riordan, Esquire Author: Robert McAdam, Esquire The “Willful Misconduct Defense” has recently been given a boost by the Court of Appeals in Layne v Crist Elect. Contr., Inc. 64 Va. App. 342, 768 S.E.2d 261 (2015). Under familiar statutory law (Virginia Code §65.2-306(A)(5)) workers’ compensation benefits will be denied to a claimant when the claimant commits a willful breach of a workplace safety rule brought to his attention prior to the accident; even though the underlying event would otherwise be compensable. This statute was recently reinvigorated by Layne. In Layne, the claimant was an employee of an electrical contractor and a subcontractor performing electrical work in a warehouse owned by Delta Star. The claimant was installing electrical conduit from a scissor lift high up in Delta Star’s core cutting room and had almost completed installing the conduit. Delta Star’s bridge crane, which was operational at the time, hit claimant’s scissor lift, causing both the scissor lift and claimant to fall far to the floor. The claimant sustained catastrophic injuries. The Claimant’s accident arose out of and occurred in the course of the employment. However, the Employer raised a willful misconduct defense, asserting the bridge crane would not have hit the scissor lift, and the injuries would not have occurred, if the claimant had rendered the bridge crane inoperable by following the “lockout-tagout” safety procedure. This procedure ensured that the electrified rails which allowed the bridge crane to move were inoperable, ensuring that the crane could not move. At hearing, the evidence showed the claimant was never given any written materials addressing the “lockout-tagout” procedure and did not...
by kpmAdmin | Apr 28, 2015 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized
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...
