Legal Corner

ADA
Judge upholds $24M award in suit involving social anxiety disorder

In Lisa Menninger v. PPD Development L.P., a federal district court judge in Massachusetts upheld a $24 million jury award for a woman who sued her employer for retaliation and discrimination because of her social anxiety disorder. The employee's role was as an executive, providing operational leadership to the company's laboratory services. In 2017, she was told her role would change to include increased client visits, social interactions, and presentations. She disclosed to her supervisor that she suffered from an anxiety disorder and provided her psychiatrist's opinion that changes to her role would increase her anxiety and make it "substantially more difficult, if not impossible," for her to perform her job.

The company agreed to provide accommodations in two of five job categories but argued the other three were essential functions. She argued that these responsibilities were not previously considered essential and that she was being treated differently and harassed after her disclosure. Shortly thereafter she took eight months medical leave and was terminated. The jury concluded and the judge agreed that PPD intentionally discriminated and retaliated against her and did so in an organized, considered effort.

Workers Compensation
Convicted felon injured in treatment program not employee of rehab provider - California

In Velasquez v. WCAB (Salvation Army), a convicted felon who entered a residential drug treatment program to avoid serving a prison sentence was injured while working in a Salvation Army warehouse and sought comp benefits. The treatment program involved "work therapy" and although he did not receive a paycheck, he received small weekly gratuities.

The WC Board denied the benefits and an Appellate Court confirmed, finding that the Salvation Army was not his employer. The state statute specifically excludes "any private, nonprofit organization while acting solely as the sponsor of a person who, as a condition of sentencing by a superior or municipal court, is performing services for the organization" from the definition of employer.

The case, however, is not over. It has been remanded to determine whether Santa Barbara County was the employer.

Firefighter awarded benefits for heart attack based on COVID-19 presumption - Florida

In Seminole County v. Braden, a firefighter tested positive for COVID-19 and less than a month later suffered a heart attack. The county stipulated to the presumption that COVID-19 caused the heart attack and the need for a heart transplant. Therefore, the case revolved around whether his exposure to COVID-19 was work-related and if the county was able to rebut the presumption with competent evidence. Medical testimony suggested that given the timeline of when he and his co-workers tested positive, it was most likely that they infected him. Thus, the Court of Appeal found that the county failed to prove he contracted the virus outside of work.

The court also noted that when the county conceded the application of the statutory presumption of work causation for the claim, it abandoned multiple defenses available under the Workers' Compensation Law.

High court rules hospital employees exempt under BIPA - Illinois

In Lucille Mosby et al. v. The Ingalls Memorial Hospital et al. the Supreme Court overturned a lower state appeals court and ruled that an exclusion in the state's biometric law applies to health care workers.

Compensation for mental injuries from active shooter drill limited by exclusive remedy - Nebraska

In Lopez v. Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Omaha, a worker had received no advance notice of an active shooter drill and reacted in fear when she heard loud bangs and her executive director told her a shooting was taking place. She ran toward a nearby shopping plaza, jumped off a retaining wall, and injured her back upon landing. Later, she learned from a superior that it was "all play acting" so that they could "see how people reacted." Even after learning it was a drill, she sought mental health treatment to address the fear and depression she attributes to the incident.

She filed a tort claim alleging that the organization was liable for assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court dismissed the claim, arguing the Workers' Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy for the worker's injuries. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court agreed noting that unlike other states the statute does not recognize an intentional tort exception to the doctrine of workers' compensation exclusivity.

Employer's right to cross-examine employee's physician is mandatory - New York

In Lazalee v. Wegman's Food Markets Inc., the Court of Appeals overturned lower court decisions that denied Wegman's Food Markets an opportunity to cross-examine an injured employee's doctor. The court noted the mandatory nature of the Workers' Compensation Board's rule - if "the employer or its carrier or special fund desires to produce for cross-examination an attending physician whose report is on file, the referee shall grant an adjournment for such purpose." Thus, neither the workers' compensation law judge nor the board has discretion on whether to allow for the cross-examination.

Psychic injury must result from abnormal working condition - Pennsylvania

In Premium Transportation Staffing Inc. v. Welker, a truck driver was driving on the turnpike when his emergency indicators lit up and he saw flames in his rearview mirror. His truck had a fire extinguisher on board, but he ran away from the truck. Another truck driver stopped and quickly put out the fire. The driver filed a workers' compensation claim for a psychic injury, claiming he developed PTSD because of the incident.

A WCJ found the injury compensable, and an appeals board agreed. However, the Commonwealth Court noted to obtain workers' compensation benefits for a psychic injury, it must be established that the injury arose from abnormal working condition. In overturning the appeals board ruling, the court acknowledged that some fires can be an abnormal working condition, but this was a minor fire that was quickly extinguished and the driver had been trained to handle such situations.

Failure to provide benefits to an injured worker in a timely manner adds attorney fees to cost - Tennessee

In Earheart v. Central Transport, the Supreme Court upheld a $50,500 award of attorney fees, an amount that is almost double the workers' compensation benefits paid to the injured worker. While working, a delivery driver injured his right hip, which required surgery to repair a torn labrum. Following the surgery, the driver began experiencing lower back pain radiating down his leg to his heel. His doctor eventually released him to light-duty work, which he performed until the employer terminated him.

After initially denying the claim, the employer ultimately agreed to pay the requested temporary disability benefits.The court upheld the board's ruling, which found that the employer wrongfully failed to timely initiate benefits and "offered nothing" to contradict the proof that the driver was entitled to requested benefits.