Legal Corner

ADA
EEOC orders company to pay $315,000 to estate of worker who was fired

A 52-year-old employee of Chicago-based S&C Electric Co. had cancer and broke his hip, but when he attempted to return to work with several doctor's notes indicating he was fit for duty, he was fired. A long-time employee, he worked as a principal designer and his job was primarily sedentary. The company will pay his estate $315,000 and must maintain and provide the EEOC with records of each employee at its Chicago facility who is terminated after attempting to return to work following a medical leave of absence and makes a complaint to either the company or a government agency.

Workers Compensation
Supreme Court asked to certify questions related to employer's liability for COVID-19 contracted by employee's family member - California

In Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc., an employee alleged that he contracted COVID-19 when he was forced to work in close contact with workers who had been transferred to his worksite from one that had significant COVID-19 cases and that he infected his wife, who became quite ill. While a federal district court for Northern California granted a motion to dismiss, finding the derivative injury doctrine barred the wife's claims and that the company didn't owe her any duty, the appeals court said it was appropriate to certify these questions for the state Supreme Court to answer because there is no controlling precedent:

1. If an employee contracts COVID-19 at his workplace and brings the virus home to his spouse, does California's derivative injury doctrine bar the spouse's claim against the employer?
2. Under California law, does an employer owe a duty to the households of its employees to exercise ordinary care to prevent the spread of COVID-19?

Going and Coming Rule bars tort action - California

In Feltham v. Universal Protection Service, a security guard company was sued when one of its workers fell asleep and drove into oncoming traffic as she traveled home. She hit and severely injured a motorcyclist, who argued that the company had negligently "required" and "allowed" their employee "to work excessive hours so as to fatigue and tire her to the point of her falling asleep at the wheel in the course and scope of her employment."

Under the going and coming rule, an employer ordinarily is not vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee commuting to or from work, but there can be special exceptions. The court found no evidence that the company required her to work excessive hours or that her schedule caused fatigue, therefore, the special exception did not apply.

Judge erred in granting field employee exception to Going and Coming Rule - Florida

In DSK Grp. Inc. v. Hernandez, an appellate court ruled that a judge of compensation claims erred when he granted compensation to a construction worker who sustained severe injuries in a vehicular accident as he drove from his home to his first work assignment for the day. The judge found while the worker was not a "traveling employee," he was a "field employee" entitled to compensation.

The court said there was no basis for such a special designation and the injured employee was not at work until he reached his first assignment and checked in with his cell phone. While he was given a credit card to purchase $165 in gas per month, this was to defray the cost of driving between jobsites, not to reimburse him for his commuting expenses.

Workers' Compensation Court has authority to modify prior award of treatment - Nebraska

In Spratt v. Crete Carrier Corp., the state Supreme Court ruled that the state Workers' Compensation Court erred in finding that it lacked authority to modify an award of medical rehabilitation services that had been previously issued to an injured truck driver. The Compensation Court had concluded that for the worker, who had suffered a back injury, the only medical rehabilitation services the worker needed to reach MMI would be for treatment of his lumbar back injury because his thoracic strain had resolved.

The treating physician later determined that the worker had reached MMI for his lumbar back injury but noted that he still suffered from back pain and sought thoracic back treatment. The Compensation Court declined the request for modification.

However, the high court noted the statute allows the Compensation Court to modify a previous award or judgment relating to physical, medical, or vocational rehabilitation services to help restore the injured employee to gainful employment, but not entirely new services or benefits. The request was not a new category of services, but a modification of medical rehabilitation services.

Processing plant violated Workers' Compensation Act - Nebraska

The operator of a beef processing plant in Hastings pleaded no contest to three counts of failure to file a required injury report. Noah's Ark Processors LLC of Hastings was fined $3,000.

Determining date of 'no labor attachment' clarified - New York

In Blanch v. Delta Air Lines, an appellate court confirmed that a flight attendant could not amend her claim to include additional conditions but reversed the WCB's finding on the date on which she became detached from the workforce. The flight attendant who had suffered a head injury in June 2018 complained of continued headaches and anxiety but the treating neurologist found that symptoms were "coming from an emotional source rather than a physical one."

He also noted he had not taken her out of the workforce and she was capable of light-duty shortly after the accident. However, she did not work and the Board found that she had voluntarily removed herself from the labor market after July 6, 2018 and suffered no compensable lost time as of July 7, 2018. The appellate court ruled this was the incorrect date. A finding of no labor market attachment is not the date that the employer or carrier first raises the issue of labor market attachment, but rather the date that the evidence showing such a lack of attachment is submitted to the Board, which wasn't until July 13, 2020.

Company's subrogation lien greatly reduced - North Carolina

In Walker v. K&W Cafeterias, an employee was killed while driving a company-owned vehicle and his wife received over $333,000 in death benefits. The widow filed a wrongful death suit in South Carolina against the third-party driver at fault and reached a settlement for $962,000, which included $50,000 in liability benefits from the at-fault driver's insurance, $12,500 in personal underinsured motorist (UIM) proceeds from Walker's insurance, and $900,000 in UIM proceeds from a commercial policy that K&W purchased with its automobile insurance carrier.

While lower courts agreed the company was entitled to reimbursement of the death benefits, the Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the commercial UIM policy constituted a South Carolina UIM policy, and South Carolina law prohibits the subrogation of UIM benefit payments. Upon remand, the Commission said the commercial UIM proceeds could not be tapped, but the $50,000 in liability insurance proceeds and $12,500 in personal underinsured motorist were subject to attorney fees and the lien.

Exception to Going and Coming Rule applies without contract - Pennsylvania

In Bark v. Sooner Steel LLC (WCAB), a seasonal laborer was typically driven to worksites by the owner's son who drove a company-owned vehicle. While he was riding home from a jobsite in the employer-owned vehicle, he was injured in a motor vehicle accident. The owner testified that workers were regularly paid for their travel time if it was over a certain distance but did not receive a separate check, it was included with their regular pay.

There is an employment contract exception to the going-and-coming rule that requires a worker to produce a "contract or unequivocal testimony" that a provision for transportation existed. A workers' compensation judge and the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board found that the laborer could not present evidence to support his receipt of travel pay and denied benefits. The Commonwealth Court overturned the denial, noting the owner had unequivocally testified that the injured worker had received additional compensation for the drive to and from the site.

In two cases high court upholds compensability for injuries for workers with preexisting back issues - West Virginia

In Putnam County Board of Education v. Woodard, the state Supreme Court upheld a determination that a custodian with a history of back issues had suffered a compensable injury while moving trash. While a claims administrator rejected the claim, the Office of Judges reversed finding a preponderance of the evidence that the custodian suffered a definite, isolated, fortuitous event, and remanded the case to determine if the injury was a result of his employment. The administrator again denied the claim, noting this was an aggravation of a preexisting, non-compensable condition. The Board of Review disagreed and found a personal injury occurred in the course of and resulting from his employment. The Supreme Court agreed noting, "The evidence indicates that though Mr. Woodard has preexisting conditions, he still sustained a compensable injury in the course and result of his employment."

In Epling v. Chancellor Health Partners Inc., a nurse who suffered from lumbar spine conditions injured her back while assisting a patient. The insurance carrier accepted liability for a lumbar sprain. An IME assessed seven percent impairment due to range of motion loss and apportioned three percent of the impairment for non-compensable degenerative spondyloarthropathy, and the claims administrator granted a four percent permanent partial disability award. A later exam by another IME determined a higher impairment, but the Supreme Court noted that the impairment rating should be apportioned for her preexisting lumbar spine conditions and the second opinion did not do so. Therefore, the four percent permanent partial disability award was upheld.