Legal Corner

ADA
Reasonable accommodation requirement doesn't trump employer's policy to hire the "best qualified" applicant

In EEOC v. Methodist Hospitals of Dallas, the Fifth Circuit held that a "mandatory reassignment" obligation violating the employer's policy to hire the "most qualified applicant" is not reasonable "in the run of cases." The hospital has a policy to hire "the most qualified applicant available" and required disabled employees who requested a permanent reassignment to compete for a vacant position. A patient care technician who had suffered a work-related injury applied for a scheduling coordinator position. A more qualified candidate was hired and the EEOC sued.

In reaching its decision, the court cautioned this wasn't absolute - a worker who could show "special circumstances" would require an exception to an employer's "most-qualified" policy. The decision is consistent with past rulings from the Fourth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuit, but the Tenth Circuit has held differently.

Workers' Compensation
Failure to delegate safety tasks could lead to civil suit - California

A Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's summary judgment to a general contractor that was sued by a subcontractor's employee. The ironworker was injured when a dirt bench next to an excavation pit gave out. While the general contractor argued it could not be held liable for injuries to subcontractors' employees, the appeals court said if a general contractor does not delegate the task of providing safe equipment for workers, it could be liable in a civil suit. There are factual issues as to whether the general contractor delegated its duty to maintain the safety of the dirt bench that should be played out in court.

Willful OSHA violation enables negligence suit in worker's death to proceed - North Carolina

In Estate of Stephens v. ADP Totalsource DE IV Inc., a worker was fatally crushed at a tire mold manufacturing plant, King Machine, and an OSHA inspection found the forklift had been modified without manufacturer approval. Upholding a trial court decision, the Court of Appeals found that a civil suit should not be barred by the exclusive remedy provisions. The estate had successfully proved an exclusive remedy exception by establishing the company intentionally engaged in misconduct by modifying the forklift.

Court defines standard for extended benefits - North Carolina

In Sturdivant v. North Carolina Department of Public Safety, a corrections officer filed a request for "extended benefits" beyond the 500-week cap on temporary total disability benefits, which was denied by the Workers' Compensation Commission. Upon appeal, in a case of first impression, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of extended benefits.

For extended benefits, an employee "shall prove" that they have "sustained a total loss of wage-earning capacity," which differs from showing "total disability" under the initial 500-week benefit. The court said the testimony of the department's vocational expert, established there were job opportunities available to the corrections officer. Considering his work history and education, the corrections officer would be able to obtain some employment, therefore, he failed to meet his burden of proof.

Cocaine use days before accident nixes intoxication defense - Minnesota

In Morales v. Installed Building Products, a fiberglass insulation installer, who said he became distracted by fiberglass dust in his eyes, was seriously injured when he lost control of his truck and crashed into an electric pole. The employer and insurer denied liability based on a rapid drug test performed at the hospital that came back positive for the presence of cocaine metabolites.

While the employee admitted a history of frequent cocaine use and that he ingested cocaine while at a bar three nights before the accident, a coworker described the installer's behavior and demeanor as normal on the two days leading up to the accident. The compensation judge ruled and the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals agreed that the insulation affecting the employee's eyes caused the accident and that cocaine intoxication was not the proximate cause of the work injury/accident. Although the use of cocaine was a violation of the company's drug policy, the intoxication defense requires the employer to prove that there was a direct relationship between the prohibited conduct and the employee's injury.

Personal assault not covered by comp - Minnesota

In Profit v. HRT Holdings, a hotel room cleaner was working when an acquaintance came to the hotel and severely injured him with a sharpened military-style entrenching tool. The attacker was diagnosed with symptomatic schizoaffective disorder and deemed incompetent to stand trial. The cleaner sought, but was denied, workers comp benefits. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, but the denial was not overturned.

Under Minnesota law, an on-the-job injury is not compensable if it was caused by the act of a third person and was "intended to injure the employee because of personal reasons, and not directed against the employee as an employee, or because of the employment." There is no carve-out exception for mental illness.

COVID-19 death benefit claim fails - New York

In Mariela Holder vs. Office for People with Developmental Disabilities et al., the widow of a house manager of a group home sought death benefits after her husband died from COVID-19 during the early months of the pandemic. A comp judge found the man's death was causally related to his employment, however, upon appeal the WC Board and an appellate court disagreed.

The appeals court said the widow failed to present evidence showing any cases of COVID-19 among those living or working in the group home. Further, a witness for the employer testified that the manager was the first known COVID-19 infection at his workplace.

Employer at time of diagnosis of occupational disease responsible for comp - New York

In Delaney v. John P. Picone Inc., a long-term union construction worker was diagnosed with neuropathy, osteoarthritis, bilateral carpel tunnel syndrome, and right cubital tunnel syndrome. A workers' compensation law judge found sufficient medical evidence to support the occupational disease claim, but the worker failed to appear at the hearing. By the time the claim was reopened, the worker had left Picone for another job. The new employer denied the claim and after reviewing IME reports, the judge determined that the disablement began while the worker was working for Picone.

While the appellate court noted the WC Board is not required to give preference to certain events over others when selecting a date of disablement, the date represented the first date the worker received treatment for his condition and a diagnosis indicating that the condition was work-related. "Accordingly, while other dates may have been appropriate, we discern no reason to disturb the board's selection," the court said.

High court finds exclusivity bars negligence claim for dog bite - Pennsylvania

In Franczyk v. The Home Depot Inc., the Supreme Court reversed a lower appeals court ruling and found that the exclusive remedy provision barred a retail worker from suing her employer for mishandling an incident when she was bitten by a customer's dog. The negligence claim was not based on the dog bite but on alleged interference with her right to commence an action against a third-party tortfeasor. She argued her supervisors failed to investigate the dog-bite incident sufficiently and allowed the dog owner and witnesses to leave the store before she was able to gather identifying information.

The court noted since the asserted injury of economic loss "is 'intertwined' inextricably with the workplace injury," the exclusivity provision immunizes the employer and insurer against responsibility in a third-party action. While some states have an exception to exclusivity when wrongful conduct is involved, that's not the case in Pennsylvania.

Good faith effort to provide list of physicians insufficient - Virginia

In Jalloh v. S.W. Rodgers, a worker fell off a ladder, suffered multiple injuries, and did not return to work. The employer contacted the worker and urged him to see a doctor and a safety officer attempted to deliver a panel list of employer-approved physicians to his home, but he was not there. The worker later declined to meet the officer to receive the list. Ultimately, the worker went to his physician. When he filed a comp claim, the employer argued the treatment was unauthorized because he went to his own physician.

While a deputy commission found the claim compensable, the Board reversed, noting the employer's good-faith effort to provide the physician list. However, the Court of Appeals ruled that employers are statutorily required to provide a panel of at least three physicians from which the employee can choose and a good faith effort is "simply not relevant." It noted there were legitimate, straightforward ways in which the employer could have complied with the requirement to provide a panel list.

Cancer claim related to workplace chemicals is compensable - West Virginia

In Chapman Corp. v. Kemp., a chemical plant electrician claimed he developed leukemia after decades of workplace exposure to cancer-causing chemicals, including benzene. The employer presented medical testimony arguing the electrician fit the profile for a leukemia diagnosis among the general population due to age and other factors. However, the Supreme Court of Appeals agreed with lower courts and found the worker had presented ample evidence showing his significant exposure to benzene throughout his career was likely a strong factor in his developing leukemia.