Legal Corner

ADA
Court addresses indefinite medical leave

In Haack v. Lapeer County Road Commission, a city garage foreman was injured in an auto accident. After the city accommodated him with a short leave, he returned on a light-duty basis. Over the course of a year, he took 13 leaves as documented in doctor's notes. The city informed him he was expected to return by the end date of the 13th leave, but when he submitted another doctor's note requesting six more weeks, the city terminated him. The worker sued under the ADA for failing to reasonably accommodate him, while the city argued it was unable to continue holding the position vacant due to "operational demands."

The court concluded that the city did not violate the ADA by refusing to extend the foreman's leave indefinitely. An accommodation that has no reasonable prospect of returning the employee to work in the identifiable future is not reasonable.

EEOC
Jury decision reminds employers of high cost of vaccine exemption request violations

A recent federal jury verdict in McCormick v. Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), awarding a former worker $425,000 in damages, reminds employers that they must remain cognizant of their vaccine requirements and exemption processes. The worker refused to be vaccinated for COVID-19, citing his Catholic faith as the basis for his objection and concerns about the safety of the vaccine. The CTA denied his exemption request, stating that he did not appear to hold a sincere religious belief. The jury sided with the former worker, finding that the CTA unlawfully denied him necessary accommodations in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Employers should be mindful that Title VII requires them to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs, unless doing so would pose an undue hardship, which was heightened by the Supreme Court decision in Groff v. DeJoy. Employers must now prove that granting a religious exemption would cause them to incur "substantial increased cost," as opposed to the previous standard, which required employers to show that increased costs were more than "de minimis."

Workers Compensation
Supreme Court clarifies relationship of state and longshore workers comp - California

In Ranger v. Alamitos Bay Yacht Club, a maintenance worker was injured while boarding a vessel at a yacht club. He sought benefits under the state's work comp system, then sued the Yacht Club under general maritime law, claiming negligence and unseaworthiness. A trial and appellate court dismissed the claim for lack of admiralty jurisdiction, noting that the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act excludes "club" workers if state comp laws cover them. Therefore, exclusive remedy applied.

The state Supreme Court reversed, noting that state laws cannot override federal maritime rights and sent the case back to the appellate court. The court found that even though the worker is eligible for comp, the alleged tort occurred on navigable water and that the activity giving rise to the incident had a connection to maritime activity; therefore, federal jurisdiction exists.

Admissibility of Expert Medical Adviser (EMA) opinions in work comp cases - Florida

In a case of first impression, Sedgwick Claims Management Services v. Thompson, the First District Court of Appeal considered whether EMA opinions and reports are subject to the Daubert standard that governs the admissibility of expert testimony in legal proceedings. The case involved a correctional officer who claimed that the constant turning of his head to survey the grounds caused repetitive trauma injuries to his neck and left shoulder. Although the claim was initially accepted by the employer/carrier as compensable under the "pay and investigate" statute, it was later denied in its entirety.

The employer/carrier sought to exclude the testimony of an EMA arguing that it failed to satisfy the Daubert standard, but a judge of compensation claims (JCC) disagreed. Upon appeal, the court said the law supported the officer's argument that Daubert applies generally in workers compensation cases; however, the Daubert standard doesn't apply because EMA testimony admissibility is governed by statute 440.25 that states "report or testimony of the expert medical advisor shall be admitted into evidence in a proceeding." Although the JCC erred in applying the Daubert standard to determine the admissibility of the EMA testimony and report, the error was harmless because the EMA opinion was ultimately admitted and properly considered by the JCC.

Petition for benefits cannot be tolled solely based on attorney fees - Florida

In Murphy v. Polk County Board of County Commissioners, a worker filed a petition for benefits (PFB). When the claim was denied, he voluntarily dismissed the petition but left pending a demand for attorney fees as part of the dismissal. More than two years after the initial injury, the employee filed additional PFBs, which the employer contended were barred by the two-year statute of limitations tied to the initial injury.

While the court noted the statute of limitation is tolled as long as at least one petition remains pending between the filing of the first petition and the hearing on the last petition, it also noted work comp benefits fall into two categories: 1) compensation for disability and death; and 2) medical and attendant. Legal fees were neither of these and, therefore, are "collateral" to a petition for benefits claim and cannot be the basis to deem a PFB is still pending.

Work comp settlement can preserve right to sue - Georgia

While a work comp settlement usually means that wrongful death or tort claims are barred, Pierre v. Micro-JA/X, LLC illustrates that settlement language matters and parties can expressly preserve additional remedies in writing. The case involved a tragic shooting of a job applicant who was shadowing a security guard for the purpose of being hired. Another security guard took the applicant's handgun and fatally shot him accidentally.

The parties agreed to a $50,000 "no-liability" work comp settlement, and the deceased's mother waived her right to pursue a remedy "with regard only to the workers compensation claim" against the defendants and agreed he was not an employee of the security company. However, the agreement also stated she did "not agree to waive any claim or action regarding wrongful death or tortious injury or any other potential claim not related to the workers compensation claim." While a judge dismissed her tort claim, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that parties can expressly preserve additional remedies in writing.

High court rules on public employers withholding of taxes from salary continuation benefits - Illinois

In Bitner et al. v. City of Pekin, police officers injured in the line of duty received payments under section 1(b) of the Illinois Public Employee Disability Act, which requires that they be paid "on the same basis as [they were] paid before the injury," without deductions for sick leave, compensatory time, vacation, or pension service credits. The city withheld employment taxes (federal/state income taxes, Social Security, Medicare) from the disability payments and two officers sued the city, arguing the withholding violated the Disability Act.

A trial judge agreed, but the appellate court reversed, and the Supreme Court affirmed. It found that section 1(b) does not forbid withholding employment taxes because while it explicitly prohibits certain deductions it does not mention taxes; and "being paid on the same basis" includes continuing the same tax withholding as before the injury.

Unprovoked shovel attack not an intentional tort - Illinois

In Kordas v. Bob's All Bright Electric, Inc., an employee was hit over the head with a shovel multiple times by a coworker, the owner's son. The attack was unprovoked and although the two had disagreements in the past, none had been violent. The employee lost consciousness and was later admitted to the hospital for four days. The owner's son attributed his behavior to mental health issues and could not explain his actions.

The coworker sued, arguing the act was intentional and not an "accident" for purposes of the comp statute. A divided Appellate Court ruled that exclusivity shielded the employer from liability because there was no evidence that the company authorized the son to commit an intentional tort or knew the son was violent and intentionally concealed his violent tendencies from its employees.

This case was published under the limited circumstances allowed under Supreme Court Rule 23(e)(1) that allows litigants to cite unpublished opinions for persuasive purposes, even though they are not binding precedent.

Incapacity exclusively caused by work injury entitles police officer to retirement benefits - Missouri

In Hauck v. The Police Retirement System of St. Louis, a 20-year veteran of the police force was struck in the left arm by an unknown object while responding to a protest. After several doctors had determined that she would never be able to fully lift her arm again, she underwent a functional capacity evaluation (FCE) and was terminated for being unable to perform the essential functions of her job.

Under law, a police officer who is permanently unable to perform the full and unrestricted duties of her position as the exclusive result of an accident occurring during the performance of duty at some definite time and place, through no negligence on her part, shall be retired by the trustees of the Police Retirement System (PRS). However, PRS determined that Hauck's diagnosis and injury were not exclusively caused by her work-related accident and denied her application, applying symptom magnification to the exclusivity element.

In overturning, the Court of Appeals noted that PRS had already determined that she was unable to fulfill her duties. While possible magnification of symptoms would have been a reason to determine that she was not incapacitated, it was no longer relevant.

Industrial Commission must examine individual evidence in asbestos cases - North Carolina

More than 150 work comp cases were filed against Continental Tire the Americas, alleging asbestos exposure led to diseases such as lung cancer and asbestosis. The cases were consolidated for hearing before the Industrial Commission and the parties agreed to a "bellwether" procedure, where six representative cases were tried. In the bellwether proceedings, the Industrial Commission found that the plaintiffs had failed to show exposure in the factory was sufficient in form and quantity to cause asbestos-related disease, a finding affirmed on appeal. Most plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their cases, but some did not, arguing their estates should have the opportunity to present evidence specific to individual cases instead of being bound by bellwether outcomes.

The court agreed. It noted that bellwether trials are usually intended to inform and streamline litigation, not bind all similar litigants by default, unless expressly agreed and procedurally justified. The court reaffirmed that doctrines like collateral estoppel or "law of the case" cannot override a claimant's right to present individualized proof. Practically, these rulings could reinvigorate many asbestos claims previously dismissed based on bellwether outcomes.

Board applied wrong statutory test to determine construction worker's classification - New York

In Trickey v. Black Riv. Plumbing, Heating & A.C. Inc., an appellate court found that the Workers Compensation Board did not use the correct legal test when classifying the worker as an employee. The Board had ruled a worker, who fell 40 feet at a construction site while installing roof trusses on a pole barn, was an employee subject to exclusive remedy and couldn't sue the firm overseeing the project. The decision was based upon the presumption of employment in the Construction Industry Fair Play Act, which determines employment status of construction workers by presumption. The worker filed paperwork, maintaining he was an independent contractor.

In remanding the case, the appeals court stated the Board "did not specifically resolve the conflicting testimony as to who actually controlled and/or directed the installation of the roof trusses," a central issue in determining whether the construction work presumption can be rebutted.

Court clarifies when state fund must cover uninsured out-of-state employers - Pennsylvania

In Uninsured Employers Guaranty Fund v. Aguilar, a roofer suffered a spinal and hand fracture after falling from a roof while working for Life Time Home Improvement Contractors, LLC, a New Jersey-based company that did not have Pennsylvania workers comp insurance. The roofer filed a claim for benefits from the Uninsured Employers Guaranty Fund (UEGF) and the Fund responded by filing a petition to join Life Time as an additional defendant.

A WCJ ruled that Life Time was responsible for temporary total disability benefits and that the UEGF was secondarily liable, but only if the roofer could prove he was not receiving or entitled to receive workers compensation benefits in New Jersey. The Fund appealed, arguing the roofer hadn't proven he was ineligible for New Jersey benefits before the record closed. The Board and Commonwealth Court disagreed with the Fund, finding the statute doesn't specify a deadline for submitting this proof, only that payment is contingent upon its submission.

Nurse terminated for vaccine refusal eligible for continued comp benefits - Pennsylvania

In K.A. Fee v. Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc., a nurse slipped on spilled water, injuring her neck and left shoulder, received comp benefits, and was placed on light duty. About three months later, she sought religious and medical exemptions from the hospital's Covid-19 vaccine policy but was denied and terminated for non-compliance. She filed a claim petition, seeking ongoing total disability benefits. A WCJ ruled in her favor, but the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) reversed, finding that the refusal to vaccinate constituted a "for cause" termination (noncompliance with employer policy) that broke the causal link between her injury and her loss of earnings.

The Commonwealth Court reinstated the benefits, finding the WCAB ignored or undervalued substantial evidence that she had acted in good faith when requesting religious and medical exemptions, and that credibility determinations by the WCJ must be respected and should not be lightly disturbed.

Crosswalk injury not compensable - Virginia

In Audra L. Poole v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., a laboratory worker slipped and fell on ice while crossing a street from a parking lot to a hospital and suffered a wrist injury that required three surgeries. The Workers Compensation Commission denied her benefits, noting that the "extended premises doctrine" was inapplicable to the public parking lot and the public-owned crosswalk to the hospital and that there was an alternative route she could have taken. Therefore, there was no exception to the coming and going rule that bars injuries that occur while a person is arriving or leaving the workplace.