Legal Corner

ADA
Landmark decision on fitness-for-duty (FFD) evaluations and medical information inquiries

In a landmark decision on April 1, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin) ruled in favor of a former Cook County correctional officer, establishing that employees can seek back pay under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) even if they are not disabled or perceived as such. After confrontations with his supervisors, the officer was required to undergo a fitness-for-duty examination and to sign medical authorization forms. He filed a lawsuit alleging that the Sheriff's Office violated the ADA by mandating an unlawful medical examination not justified by business necessity.

A jury agreed but awarded no damages. The court restored his seniority but denied his request for back pay, reasoning that he was neither disabled nor perceived as disabled and thus not entitled to back pay.

Upon appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed, noting that requiring an improper medical examination constitutes discrimination "on the basis of disability," regardless of whether the employee has a disability or is perceived to have one. This ruling sets a significant precedent within the Seventh Circuit states, broadening the scope of ADA protections by allowing employees to challenge unlawful medical examinations and seek remedies without a disability status.

Takeaway: Employers must ensure that such examinations are job-related and consistent with business necessity to avoid potential liability, even when dealing with employees who are not disabled.

Workers Compensation
High court ruling could increase comp costs by 265 percent - Connecticut

In Gardner v. Dept. of Mental Health & Addiction Services, the state Supreme Court overturned decisions of lower courts by ruling that an administrative law judge (ALJ) has authority to award ongoing temporary partial incapacity benefits to a worker who has reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) in lieu of converting the benefits to permanent partial disability. Relying on an impact report from NCCI, the Connecticut Business & Industry Association (CBIA) argues the decision could increase workers compensation claims costs by as much as 265 percent. "Coupled with the court's December 2024 Cochran v. Department of Transportation ruling, the Gardner decision marks the most costly and consequential period of change in recent history for Connecticut's workers' compensation system." (The Cochran decision grants workers wage replacement benefits even if they are retired, have not worked for years, and have no intention of returning to work.) It strongly advocates action by state policymakers.

Uncertainty over "borrowed employee" status precludes summary judgment - Illinois

In Tolbert v. Odum Concrete Products, an employee of a general contractor (GC) was hit by a cement truck owned and operated by a subcontractor and seriously injured. The truck driver was paid by the subcontractor, which was reimbursed by the GC. After the accident, the GC asked the driver to take a drug test, but he refused, and the GC sent him home. The injured employee sued the subcontractor, its parent company, and the truck driver.

The trial court granted summary judgment to those sued, finding the driver was a "borrowed employee" because the GC had supervisory responsibility at the site, the GC hired the subcontractor, and the subcontractor did not provide supervision at the site. Upon appeal, the Appellate Court found that there were genuine factual disputes whether the GC controlled the manner and direction of work by the truck driver. The subcontractor hired and trained the driver, provided the equipment and tools, paid the driver, and the driver returned to the subcontractor's facility to complete the accident report. Because it was unclear whether the driver was a borrowed employee, the court reversed and sent the case to the trial court to make that determination.

High court upholds COVID comp claim for lineman - Massachusetts

In Stacy v. Unitil Corp., the Supreme Judicial Court upheld an award of benefits to a lineman for his total disability after a COVID-19 infection. During the pandemic, he was considered an "essential worker" and in February 2021, 8 of the 11 linemen on the crew contracted COVID. He was hospitalized and has been unable to return to work.,

The company argued that the risk of contracting COVID was not inherent in his employment as a lineman, but the courts disagreed. The high court noted that the extraordinary circumstances of government-imposed restrictions created heightened risks for essential workers and that "the risk of infection through close contact with others was high" as he shared a vehicle with others as part of his job.

Takeaway: This precedent-setting decision establishes that pandemic-related illnesses can qualify as compensable workplace injuries when workers face elevated risks due to their essential status.

High court clarifies standard retirement presumption - Minnesota

In Simonson v. Douglas County, a 40-year-old histologist suffered a lower back injury while performing her job duties. The injury left her permanently and totally disabled, and she received work comp benefits. When she turned 67, her employer stopped paying her permanent total disability (PTD) benefits based on a statutory retirement presumption. She objected, claiming she would have worked past age 67 and sought to rebut the presumption.

Based on a previous case, a compensation judge considered intent to retire and financial need because other factors were irrelevant and concluded that the parties were in an equal position and therefore, the histologist did not meet the burden of proof. The Workers Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) reversed this decision, concluding that the proper standard of proof to rebut the presumption was a preponderance of the evidence and that the histologist had met this burden based on her financial need.

Upon appeal, the state Supreme Court affirmed the WCCA's determination that the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies, but it erred in emphasizing financial need as the primary factor. The court held that the relevant question is whether the employee would have retired anyway, even if not disabled, considering various factors such as the availability of work, retirement arrangements, age, work history, and willingness to forgo social security benefits. The case was remanded.

Benefits granted despite intoxication - New York

In Ferra v. Paramount Global, an Appellate Court upheld the finding of a WCJ that a worker who had a blood alcohol level of .18 at the time of an auto accident was entitled to comp benefits. The worker was involved in two accidents. The first was minor while traveling from his home in New Jersey to a job assignment in New York and he was not injured. After this accident, he was documenting information in his vehicle with his left leg against the open driver's door, when his vehicle was hit from behind on the driver's side by another vehicle. This resulted in serious injuries.

Under New York law, an injury will not be compensable if an employer can show it was "solely occasioned by intoxication from alcohol." Although it was recognized that the high blood alcohol content could be reasonably considered the cause of the first accident, the WCJ and WCB found that intoxication could not be considered the cause of the second accident in which he was injured, and the Appellate Court agreed.

Insurance carrier has no duty to defend in personal injury action - New York

In NGM Insurance Co. v. MGC Design & Construction Corp., an employee of MGC Design & Construction Corp. (MGC) allegedly was injured when he tripped and fell while working at a construction site and sued Barr and IE Construction Management, the construction manager. Barr and IE filed separate third-party actions against MGC, seeking indemnification.

Under Section 11 of the Workers' Compensation Law an employer is liable to a third party only if the third party can sufficiently prove that an employee has suffered a grave injury. Grave injury is defined and includes death, permanent and total loss of use or amputation of an arm, leg, hand or foot, loss of multiple fingers, and other similar severe injuries. Medical evidence indicated that the employee's injury did not meet this standard.

Therefore, the appellate court upheld a grant of summary judgment that declared the insurance carrier was relieved of its duty to defend or indemnify any entity involved in a worker's civil suit because it showed there is no possible factual or legal basis on which it might eventually be obligated to indemnify MGC under any policy.

Court approves $12M settlement in death of worker from fatal fall - Pennsylvania

In Kaitlyn Pittman v. Hercules Cement Co. LLC et al, a cement company, Hercules Cement Co. LLC, has agreed to pay $12 million to the family of an ironworker in a personal injury negligence lawsuit after the ironworker fell to his death. While trying to rearrange wooden planks to create a temporary work area without necessary safety equipment like fall protection and secure anchors, he fell 23 feet.

The family's lawsuit claimed that Hercules Cement's unsafe practices and failure to adhere to industry safety standards contributed to the worker's fatal accident. The $12 million is allocated 70 percent for wrongful death and 30 percent for survival action.

Adjustor's error in accepting claim results in compensability - Pennsylvania

In City of Phila. and PMA Mgmt. Corp v. Bell (WCAB), the city investigated a claim that alleged a firefighter's colon cancer was work-related and decided to deny it. However, an inexperienced adjuster entered it incorrectly and caused a Medical-Only Notice of Compensation Payable (MONCP) to be issued. The city filed a Review Petition, seeking to have the MONCP set aside.

While a WCJ accepted that the adjuster made a mistake, the WCJ was unwilling to set it aside. Writing that "(a)llowing... documents to be set aside when mistakes are made is not a precedent this (judge) is going to set." The Workers' Compensation Board and Commonwealth Court affirmed.

Appeals Board overturns claim denied because of pre-existing conditions - Tennessee

In Jason Bednar vs. Memorial Healthcare System, a worker exacerbated a back injury while lifting a patient, which he said caused both physical and mental injuries. The hospital initially allowed the worker to be treated but eventually denied a physical workers compensation claim, arguing the injury was related to one he suffered at a previous workplace and that his mental condition was preexisting.

While a trial court agreed, the Appeals Board reversed, writing that "a preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the employee suffered a compensable temporary aggravation of a preexisting condition." It remanded the case for the trial court to address "whether, in light of our holding with respect to the employee's physical injuries, he suffered a compensable mental injury and if so, the extent of the employee's psychiatric impairment and resulting permanent disabilities."