Lynch & Cornett, P.C. in Richmond, Virginia.
Virginia Insurance Liability Defense Attorneys
Virginia Workers Compensation Defense Attorneys
Virginia Insurance Liability Defense Attorneys, serving the Commonwealth of Virginia.
How Can We Help?
Fill out our online form.

News & Articles

Recent Workers’ Compensation Opinions of Interest

Personal Errand.
Brenyon Pilgrim v. Snead and Sons Trucking, LLC, VWC JCN No.: VA00001116795 (March 23, 2016).  The claimant was employed as a tractor trailer driver.  His job required him to pick up materials from customers which were then transported for recycling.  On September 16, 2015, the claimant had picked up a load from a customer and was transporting it to the recycling center.  While in the process of doing so, he realized that he had left his wallet at home, and had no money for lunch.  He called his wife, and asked her to meet him with his wallet near their home so that he could pick up his wallet.  The claimant admitted that in order to meet his wife, he had to deviate from his direct route from the customer to the recycling facility.  While taking the exit ramp off the highway to meet his wife, his truck overturned onto its side, resulting in various injuries to the claimant.  In denying the claim, the Commission found that by deviating from his route, the claimant took himself from the course of his employment without approval or permission by his employer.

 


 

Proper notice of claim for PPD benefits.
Alberto Gomez v Garcia Construction Company, Record No. 1624-15-2 (Court of Appeals, March 29, 2016, unpublished).  On August 3, 2007, the claimant suffered compensable injuries by accident to his wrists.  The claimant was awarded wage indemnity benefits for the period August 4, 2007 through February 24, 2008.  The claimant sought to hold the defendants liable for permanent partial disability benefits.  At issue was whether the claimant had filed a claim prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations.  The claimant argued that two letters he had written, the first on August 31, 2010 and the second on January 25, 2011, constituted claims for permanent partial disability benefits.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the full Commission’s finding that the letters did not constitute claims for permanent partial disability benefits.  The Court pointed out that in order to constitute a claim, a filing had to “fairly apprise the Commission that a claim was being made.”  The claimant’s letters failed to apprise the Commission that a claim for permanent partial disability was being made.  The letters merely mentioned problems the claimant was having as a result of his compensable injuries, such letters did not qualify as claims, and his claim for benefits was barred by the statute of limitations.

 


 

Special errand.
In Stanley v. Jefferson Area Bd. for Aging, JCN VA00000968370 (Oct. 13, 2015), the Commission reversed the Deputy Commissioner’s finding that the “special errand” exception to the “coming and going” rule was applicable. The claimant worked as a home delivery meal coordinator, a job that required her to set up routes, schedule drivers who delivered meals to elderly clients, and occasionally make deliveries herself. She was not paid for her transportation to and from work. If she made a delivery on her way home, the claimant would leave work early and log her time so that she was paid while making the delivery. The claimant occasionally worked from home. If she worked part of the day at the office and then traveled home to finish her workday, she was not compensated for the commute. On the date of accident, the claimant planned to work a half day in the office and work the rest of the day at home for personal reasons. On her way home, the claimant delivered a meal to a client who lived close to the office. Approximately ten minutes after making the delivery, she was involved in a motor vehicle accident. Finding the claimant was not involved in a special mission, but was fulfilling the primary mission of her job, the Commission found the “special errand” exception was not applicable. The Commission further held that since there was no contractual agreement to pay her for travel to and from work, the transportation exception was not applicable either. Accordingly, the Commission found that the claimant’s accident was solely the result of exposure to the risks of the road for entirely personal reasons and she was not within the course and scope of her employment.

 


 

Assault did not arise out of employment.
In the full Commission opinion of Baker v. Lowe’s Home Centers, JCN VA00000990523 (Mar. 29, 2016), the claimant sought benefits for a neck injury resulting from a customer grabbing him around the neck from the rear as he was seated at his desk working. The claimant argued that his injuries were compensable as an innocent non-participating victim of horseplay because the customer had no intention to cause injury. The Deputy Commissioner disagreed, holding that the claimant was a victim of assault, and as the assault was not directed at him as an employee or because of his employment, the claim was not compensable. The Commission affirmed the Deputy Commissioner’s finding on compensability, holding that there was no evidence of the customer’s state of mind, but regardless, the absence of an expressed intention to maim or kill did not make the customer’s actions any less of an assault. The customer’s decision to approach the claimant from behind and grab him around the neck was purely personal and unconnected to the conditions of his employment. Therefore, the injury resulting from the assault did not arise out of his employment.

 


 

Accident did not arise out of the claimant’s employment.
United Airlines, Inc. v. Bryan Andrew Taylor,  Record No. 1169-15-4, Court of Appeals of Virginia (unpublished) (March 15, 2016). In this unpublished Court of Appeals Opinion, the claimant was employed as a ramp agent for United Airlines. On the date of his accident, he was unloading a plane, walking up the “jet bridge” with two strollers under his arms. The claimant estimated that the stroller in his right hand weighed 30 lbs., and the stroller in his left hand weighed about 5 lbs.  He did not slip or trip, and there was no defect with the stairs, nor was there debris on the stairs. The claimant’s knee  “popped “ as he stepped onto the third stair with his right leg, and he fell down the stairs onto his back, having dislocated the patella of his right knee.  A majority of the Full Commission found this claim to be compensable, inferring that the weight and bulk of the stroller, as well as the other lighter stroller, were conditions of the claimant’s employment that caused or contributed to the claimant’s injury.  However,  in reversing the Full Commission and denying this claim, the Court of Appeals panel noted that there was no medical testimony or opinion of a causal connection between the conditions of the claimant’s employment and the injury.  Moreover, there was no defect with respect to the stairs.  The Court stated that the Commission can draw inferences from the facts before it, but in this case, the inference of a causal connection between the conditions of employment and the injury is speculative,  and there was no evidence in the record to suggest that the dislocation would not have occurred, or would have been less likely to occur, if the claimant had not been carrying anything in his hands at the time of the incident.  Accordingly, it was held that the evidence failed to establish that the accident arose out of the claimant’s employment.  Benefits were denied.

 


 

Claimant’s accident was not sustained in the course of his employment.
Robert William Jones v. The Woodland, Inc., et al.,  JCN No. VA00001035833 (March 29, 2016).  In this Full Commission Opinion, the claimant worked for the employer as a certified nursing assistant and resident aide.  The claimant clocked out at 7:30  a.m. on the date of his accident.  He then walked slowly to the human resources building to pick up his paystub.  While the claimant testified that he arrived at the human resources building just before 8:00 a.m., other evidence in the record indicated that he did not arrive until 8:45 a.m., and the claimant offered no explanation for this discrepancy in the timeline.  The claimant went to the human resources building to obtain a copy of his paystub for his wife’s  disability.  (Paychecks were directly deposited into the claimant’s account,  and paystubs could have been emailed or mailed to the claimant.)  He slipped on snow and fell, fracturing his leg, after leaving the building and taking the same route back to return to his vehicle.  A majority of the Full Commission held that while the claimant’s venture to pick up his paystub was not unexpected and was not prohibited by the employer, the employer did not receive a benefit from the claimant’s actions.  Accordingly, this claim was denied, with the majority of the Full Commission finding that the claimant was not in the course of his employment at the time of his injury.  (The dissenting Commissioner gave the opinion that the claimant’s injury did occur during the course of his employment, as the claimant remained on the employer’s premises and walked across the premises after his shift had ended in order to pick up his paystub,  which the claimant was permitted to do.  Furthermore, the dissenting opinion reasoned that the claimant’s action did benefit the employer, as it saved the employer the cost of mailing the paystub to the claimant, and it satisfied a legal duty that the employer owed to the claimant that requires an employer, upon request of an employee, to furnish the employee with a written statement of the gross wages earned by the employee during any pay period, along with the amount and purpose of any deductions.  The dissenting Commissioner noted that the claimant fell on the employer’s premises shortly after clocking out for work, and that the claimant remained in the course of his employment during this brief deviation.)

 

View Archived Workers' Compensation Cases

 

 

Liability Cases in the News

 

USE OF BLACK BOX RECORDER DATA IS LIMITED IN VIRGINIA
In a recent Federal Court decision of Ferguson v. National Freight, Inc. (VWF 016-3-128), the trial judge limited the defense expert’s opinions based upon the Event Data Recorder or black box data.  The accident involved a tow truck wrecker that had just picked up a disabled car on the side of the interstate.  The tow truck pulled into the travel lane, and thereafter was struck in the rear by a tractor trailer.  The defense claimed the tow truck pulled out suddenly and did not give the tractor trailer sufficient time to respond.  There also was a dispute about the speed of the vehicles.

The defendant’s accident reconstruction and forensic expert had expected to testify based upon the Event Data Recorder from the tractor trailer.  The expert wanted to testify about the speed of the tractor trailer as well as the actual speed at the time of collision, the lag time between the application of brakes and the collision, and the speed of the tow truck vehicle at the time of the collision.  The judge only allowed the expert to testify about the speed of the tractor trailer based upon the actual reading of the Event Data Recorder.  The other opinions were found by the court to be too speculative and did not take into consideration other variables, such as the weight of the vehicle, level surface of the roadway, the incline of the highway, and the conditions of the tires. 

The expert had wanted to use a study performed on lag times of driver’s braking to use for his opinion of the truck driver’s lag time in the case.  The judge would not permit this testimony since the study used different equipment, had not been subject to peer review and had no known rate of error.  The judge found any testimony regarding the driver’s response time to be unreliable and inadmissible. 

The opinion is consistent with previous Virginia Court decisions:  accident reconstructionist and forensic experts are rarely permitted to testify in Virginia cases.

 


 

THE UNSETTLED STATE OF BAD FAITH CLAIMS IN VIRGINIA
In a previous post on our website, we discussed a recent decision by a Norfolk Circuit trial judge granting a bad faith action against the Underinsured Motorist Carrier, Allstate, after a jury verdict.(Chevalier v. Magnum, VLW 015-8-092).  Pursuant to Va. Code §8.01-66.1(D)(1), the judge found the language permitted a bad faith action after a judgment.

Recently, in a Fairfax Circuit Court case, the trial judge found there is no bad faith cause of action pursuant to Va. Code §8.01-66.1(D)(1), and this has resulted in contrary Circuit Court Opinions in Virginia.  In the case of Manu v. GEICO Cas. Co., VLW 016-8-034, the Fairfax trial judge ruled that Va. Code §8.01-66.1(D)(1) requires a judgment against the insurance carrier before a duty arises under the contract.  Therefore, the insurance carrier has no pre-trial duty to evaluate, adjust or settle an uninsured or underinsured motorist carrier claim in good faith.   Like the Chevalier case, the verdict in the Manu case exceeded the policy limits of $50,000 for UM benefits.  The offer by the UM carrier, GEICO, had only been $5,000 before trial.  These factors did not seem to be an issue in the decision; rather it was the reading of the statute that seemed to dictate the judge’s decision.

The Plaintiff’s counsel has indicated an appeal will be taken, and therefore, the issue may eventually be decided by the Supreme Court of Virginia.  The Chevalier case settled before any other opinions were written. 

While the Fairfax trial judge in the Manu v. GEICO case felt the Supreme Court of Virginia would agree with his opinion, it is uncertain how the Supreme Court will rule.  At this point, there are conflicting Circuit Court Opinions on the issue, and other Circuit court judges may rule upon the issue before any Virginia Supreme Court opinion is rendered.

 

 

View Archived Liability Cases

 

 

Virginia Insurance Liability Defense Attorneys

Meet the Team Workers' Compensation Insurance Liability Defense Where We Serve Contact Us

Virginia Workers' Compensation Defense Attorneys

LYNCH CORNETT HAYS & SELI, P.C. serving the Commonwealth of Virginia USA
Insurance Liability Defense Attorneys / Civil Litigation Defense Attorneys / Workers' Compensation Defense Attorneys
Commerce Plaza One, Suite 210, 2809 Emerywood Parkway, Richmond, Virginia 23294

© 2016 All Rights Reserved Worldwide. Website by Award Web Services for LYNCH, CORNETT, HAYS & SELI, P.C. @ LCHSLaw.com

Serving Central Virginia: Charlottesville, Chesterfield, Richmond, Tri-Cities (Petersburg, Hopewell, Colonial Heights), Va
Northern Virginia (NoVa): Alexandria, Arlington, Fredericksburg, Manassas, Stafford, Woodbridge, Va
Southwestern Virginia: Abingdon, Blacksburg, Bristol, Roanoke, Salem, Va
Eastern Virginia: Chesapeake, Hampton, Portsmouth, Newport News, Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Va