Legal Corner

Workers Compensation
Jury awards $34.7 million verdict to injured truck driver - California

In Jesus Fonseca vs. Walmart, a jury in San Bernardino County ordered Walmart to pay a truck driver $34.7 million after finding the retailer defamed the employee by claiming he committed "gross misconduct" and "integrity" violations related to his medical restrictions. The award included $9.7 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages.

A 14-year employee, the truck driver was injured when a vehicle rear-ended his semitruck on a highway. He received work comp and was put on driving restrictions. Walmart publicly accused him of fraud and eventually fired him for violating the company's integrity rules in its code of ethics because they had learned he drove a recreational vehicle with his family. In his lawsuit, the injured truck driver said he "did not understand" that his work restrictions included "personal driving, especially because he drove to his doctor's appointments and was not informed that he could not drive himself to his appointments."

The jury found that Walmart did not use reasonable care, and its statements were made with malice. Walmart plans to appeal.

Court orders publication of decision regarding Privette Doctrine - California

In Collins v. Diamond Generating Corp., an appellate court ordered publication of its decision overturning a jury's award of $150 million to the family of a worker killed in a power plant explosion owned by Sentinel Energy Center LLC in North Palm Springs, which was managed and operated by DGC Operations LLC. Employees of DGC failed to follow protocols while performing annual maintenance, triggering the explosion.The family sued Diamond Generating Corp.,which has a 50 percent indirect ownership interest in Sentinel and is also the parent company of DGC Operations.

Diamond appealed the jury verdict that found its failure of safety oversight led to the death, arguing the claims should have been barred by the Privette Doctrine. The company had requested jury instruction on the doctrine, but the trial judge found it inapplicable. The appellate court disagreed and ordered a new trial.

Employer must deny compensability within 120 days of first providing treatment - Florida

In Silvia-Pabalan v. Pinellas County School Board, a middle school teacher was hit by a student and suffered several injuries, including lingering headaches, dizziness, and nausea. Following treatment for several months, she testified some issues improved, but the headaches lingered, and she sought authorization for medical treatment with a neurological specialist after the treating neurologist denied it.

Under state statute, an employer or carrier must deny compensability within 120 days of first providing treatment for the injury, or the condition is deemed compensable, unless the employer or carrier can show material facts that could not have been discovered through reasonable investigation within the 120-day period. Once deemed compensable, the employer or carrier has the burden of showing a break in causation.

In this case, over one year had passed between the first treatment and denial and the employer and carrier did not allege a break in the chain of causation. This, the teacher was compensated.

High court rules civil action for illness can proceed - Illinois

In Candice Martin v. B.F. Goodrich Corp. et al, the widow of an employee who was exposed to chemicals alleged to be causes of angiosarcoma of the liver, filed a civil suit alleging occupational exposure led to her husband's death in 2020. The company argued that the occupational disease law was the exclusive remedy for the claim.

In 2015, the high court held that state law precludes any cause of action for all occupational diseases after 25 years. In 2019, a law became effective that added a section to the Workers' Occupational Diseases Act allowing civil actions for any injury or death that is otherwise time-barred. The court determined this applies prospectively, meaning it applies to new actions filed after the amendment was enacted and does not violate the due process guarantee, as defendants did not have a vested right in an exclusivity defense before the employee's injury was discovered.

Plumber commuting to work entitled to compensation for injuries incurred in crash - Illinois

In Mechanical, Inc. v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, a plumber traveled from his residence to 29 job sites using his car during his 1.5 years on the job. He was not compensated for using his car and his employer didn't tell him how to get to jobsites. On his way from home to a jobsite, a wrong-way driver crashed into him.

The employer argued that the injuries did not arise out of and occur in the course of employment because the plumber was commuting at the time of the crash and was not a "traveling employee" under the work compensation statute. Under the "coming and going" rule, employees who are injured while commuting to or from work are generally not entitled to benefits. An exception is a traveling employee such as employees who travel between various job sites for work or running errands for an employer. The key point is the employer benefits from the actions.

The court found since the work could only be performed at customers' locations, the plumber was a traveling employee. It rejected the argument that he chose to reside far from the jobsites; he could not mitigate his risk by moving since he traveled to so many different places.

Teen worker immune in death, but civil case can proceed against parents - Minnesota

In Niebuhr vs. Sieberg, the Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision that granted summary judgment to the owners of a vehicle involved in a crash that killed their son's boss. The teen worked for a computer and electronics company owned by a sole proprietor who was blind. The owner provided work comp for his employees, but he opted out of coverage for himself.

When the teen had to drive for business, he usually drove the company vehicle, however, there were times when he used his vehicle - a truck owned by his parents. One day when he took the truck to make a delivery and his boss was a passenger, he lost control, and his boss was killed. His boss's heirs filed suit against the teen and his parents. Although the driver is immune from liability under the Workers' Compensation Act because he was driving during the course of his employment, the owners of the vehicle can be held liable. The Safety Responsibility Act states that a vehicle driver is deemed an agent of the vehicle owner if the driver operates the vehicle with the owner's consent. A lawsuit against the parents may move forward.

Justice for Injured Workers Act applies retroactively - New York

In a decision that has far-reaching implications for future work comp cases, Waldy Quinones Garcia v. Monadnock Construction, Inc., the Supreme Court upheld the decision that the Justice for Injured Workers Act (JIWA), enacted in 2022, applies retroactively to actions initiated before its enactment.The construction worker allegedly suffered cervical and lumbar spine injuries in a construction accident and sought work comp and filed a civil suit. The Workers Compensation Board (WCB) found the injuries were not causally related to the accident and the employer moved to amend its response, invoking the affirmative defense of collateral estoppel.

The JIWA provides that no finding by the WCB or a workers compensation law judge shall be given collateral estoppel effect in any other action or proceeding arising out of the same occurrence, other than the determination of the existence of an employer-employee relationship. The Appellate Court ruled, and the Supreme Court agreed, that the JIWA applies retroactively, thereby invalidating the use of collateral estoppel based on prior Workers Compensation Board decisions.

WCB and appeals court overturn award of mental injury benefits for bus driver - New York

In Jenise M. Waddy vs.Manhattan & Bronx Transit Authority, the WCB overturned a WC Law Judge's decision that a bus driver had suffered a "work-related" mental injury because when she was stopped at a light, a passenger she barred from boarding climbed onto the front of the vehicle, pounded at the windshield, and tried to grab at her through an open side window. The WCB found that this event was no more psychologically stressful than events experienced by fellow bus operators facing unruly passengers and an appeals court agreed.

Landmark decision by high court finds exclusivity does not apply to estate time-barred claims - Pennsylvania

In the case of Brad Lee Herold, as Executor of the Estate of William L. Herold v. University of Pittsburgh, et al, the Supreme Court found that the exclusive remedy does not prohibit the estate of a deceased worker from suing the worker's former employer for negligence when the estate is otherwise time-barred from pursuing benefits under the Occupational Disease Act. The decedent was employed by the University of Pittsburgh for more than 40 years as a stationary engineer working on its campus facilities where he was exposed to asbestos, and he developed mesothelioma 15 years after his exposure to asbestos. The court noted applying exclusivity to preclude a tort action when no other remedy is available would contradict the fundamental principle of work comp.

Appeals board overturns denial of mental injury claim related to evaluation - Tennessee

In Lawson v. CoStar Group, Inc., the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed the decision of a trial court that a supervisor had not suffered a compensable mental injury. The supervisor alleged her pre-existing post-traumatic stress disorder was exacerbated by conduct during a work performance review in 2023 that was prepared by a supervisor she had claimed sexually harassed her. She said that the male supervisors who delivered the performance review were aware of the nature of the allegations, were dismissive of her concerns, and acted collectively.

A trial court, in granting a summary judgment and dismissing her claim, concluded that her "feelings are not uncommon or unexpected" in such work proceedings. However, the appeals court reversed, finding that the summary judgment was "improper," writing that "there are one or more genuine issues of material fact regarding the circumstances of the performance evaluation."

Bus driver denied benefits for walking injury - Virginia

In Mashaallah Aliaghaei vs. Fairfax County Public Schools, Fairfax County School Board, a school bus driver filed for medical and wage loss benefits, alleging a left foot and knee injury that occurred while walking from his bus to a bathroom. The Workers' Compensation Commission ruling noted that to prove an injury by accident under the statute, four criteria must be met: an identifiable incident, a definite time, evidence of an obvious sudden mechanical or structural change in the body, and casual connection between the incident and the bodily change. "Simple acts of walking, bending, reaching, or turning, without any work-related exertion or awkward contributing factors, are not considered to be risks of one's employment."

Since the injury was not caused by conditions of the workplace or some significant work-related exertion, it was not compensable.