Legal Corner

ADA
Jury awards $405,083 to employee in failed drug test termination

In U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Princess Martha LLC et al., a federal jury unanimously awarded $405,083 to a veteran who has post-traumatic stress disorder in an employment disability discrimination lawsuit against a Florida senior living facility. After the applicant failed a drug test, the facility rescinded her job offer despite her repeated attempts to provide proof of the legally prescribed medication. During the trial, a manager admitted to submitting false information to the EEOC.

The jury concluded that the applicant had a disability, adequately disclosed the disability, and was denied a reasonable accommodation. It awarded $5,083 in back pay, $50,000 in compensatory damages, and $350,000 in punitive damages.

Workers Compensation
Exception to going-and-coming rule not applicable to carpool arranged by colleague - California

Generally, employees injured while commuting to and from work are not eligible for work comp, but there are two exceptions. The "special risk" exception provides for compensation where a risk associated with the employment causes injury just outside the employer's premises, and the "dual purpose" exception applies when the trip involves an incidental benefit to the employer other than the employee's presence at work.

In Zenith Insurance Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, the Appeals Board applied the special risk and dual-purpose exceptions to the going and coming rule and awarded benefits to a farmworker who was seriously injured in a vanpool crash on his commute home. The farmer did not drive, and employees privately organized and paid for the vanpool.The employer did not arrange, control, or finance the transportation.

The insurer appealed and the 3rd District Court of Appeal reversed the Board's decision. The dual-purpose exception requires a work-related benefit beyond routine commuting and the employer did not arrange or control the vanpool and derived no special benefit beyond the employee's presence at work. The rationale for applying the special risk exception went beyond what case law allows.

High court rules comp judge should determine incapacity - Minnesota

In Lykins v. Anderson Contracting, Inc., a worker suffered "life-changing physical and cognitive injuries" in an explosion and entered a work comp settlement. About five years later, the court-appointed a conservator for the worker, who petitioned the Workers Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) to set aside the settlements because the worker was incapacitated when he agreed to them and the company had not filed relevant medical reports with the proposed settlement.

The WCCA referred the matter to a compensation judge to determine if the worker could have been incapacitated at the time of the settlements. If so, the case should go to district court to determine incapacity. State law provides that an agreement to settle any claim "is not valid if a guardian or conservator is required...and an employee or dependent has no guardian or conservator."

The state Supreme Court vacated the part of the ruling that required referral to district court. It held that the workers compensation courts have the authority to determine whether the worker was incapacitated when he signed the settlements.

Exclusivity does not preclude corporate officers from liability as individual landlords - North Carolina

In Nelson v. Smith, 2025, owners of a company owned the commercial property in which their business operated in their individual capacities. The property had flooded many times and Hurricane Florence caused significant damage, but allegedly it was never properly remediated. A worker suffered symptoms associated with mold and paid for an Environmental Relative Moldiness Index test, revealing the workspace was unsafe. He filed a comp claim and shortly after was terminated. Later, he entered into a settlement and general release agreement.

A few years later, he sued the owners for negligence, gross negligence, and punitive damage. A trial court dismissed the case based on the work comp exclusivity provisions. The Court of Appeals overturned the ruling, finding that the exclusivity provision does not bar the claim because the property was owned in individual capacities and as landlords the owners were separate from the company.

Second Injury Fund claims not compensable for occupational diseases or non-qualifying conditions - Missouri

The state Supreme Court recently denied claims for benefits in two cases involving the state's Second Injury Fund. In James Eckhardt v. Treasurer of Missouri as the Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, a worker sustained seven work-related injuries over his 40-year career as an aircraft mechanic. Claims against the Second Injury Fund seeking permanent total disability benefits for injuries occurring after Jan. 1, 2014, require a medically documented, preexisting disability equaling at least 50 weeks of permanent partial disability compensation.

An ALJ awarded benefits based on a medical report that opined the worker was permanently and totally disabled due to the combination of his last injury in 2015 injury and all six earlier injuries. The judge acknowledged that one of the earlier injuries did not meet the 50-week threshold but found this insignificant. On appeal, the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission reversed, and the Supreme Court agreed. The only medical evidence in the case included the non-qualifying injury and no evidence based solely on the qualifying preexisting injuries.

In Treasurer of Missouri as the Custodian of the Second Injury Fund v. Diana Penney, a pharmacy technician was diagnosed and compensated for three repetitive-use diseases and stopped working. An ALJ and the Commission found she was entitled to PTD under the Second Injury Fund. The Supreme Court reversed the ruling because occupational diseases do not qualify as compensable, preexisting injuries for Second Injury Fund claims. Changes that took effect for injuries occurring after Jan. 1, 2014, require that qualifying, preexisting conditions directly result from an injury that arises by accident.

Court clarifies when financial hardship justifies reclassifying worker to total disability - New York

In Epstein v. Waldbaums, an employee receiving permanent partial disability benefits claimed extreme hardship and sought reclassification so that she could continue receiving benefits based on permanent total disability. Under the comp law, where a worker has lost more than 75 percent of wage-earning capacity, they may request, within the year before the scheduled exhaustion of benefits, that they be reclassified to permanent total disability. The worker must prove extreme hardship and just having a shortfall of income versus expenses does not automatically qualify.

The 75-year-old had worked as a meat packer for 44 years, had limited education, and poor health, including two cancer diagnoses and two COVID-related hospitalizations. She demonstrated that she would have less than $200 a month absent comp benefits to cover her basic needs. The Board granted her request, and the Appeals Court agreed. It considered her age, educational background, health, and funds available, concluding that she was unlikely to find gainful employment given her age and experience as a manual laborer with limited education.

High court hearing case to clarify standards for the aggravation of preexisting conditions - Tennessee

Last month, the state Supreme Court heard arguments in Jo Carol Edwards v. Peoplease, LLC. The case concerns an employee who sustained knee injuries in a work-related accident and revolves around whether the accident or a preexisting condition was the primarily cause for the need for knee replacements.The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims held that the accident was the primary cause, whereas the Appeals Board panel reversed. The high court is expected to clarify the legal standards regarding aggravation of pre-existing conditions.