Browse By Tags

Applying the 4-part test described in Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law , § 34.01, et seq. , a Tennessee appellate court affirmed a state trial court’s determination that an employer failed to show that one of its healthcare workers...

An employer’s known work rule—that an employee should not lift more than 40 pounds without assistance—did not bar the claim of a Virginia worker who sustained a back injury while attempting to move three boxes of computers, each weighing...

Where a claimant was injured in a fall from a roof, the Industrial Commission did not err in awarding him additional compensation for his employer's violation of a specific safety requirement (“VSSR”), since Ohio Admin. Code 4123:1-3-09...

The failure of a Virginia bus driver to lock and wear his seatbelt upon picking up passengers—he later sustained serious injuries when his vehicle was struck from behind, careened down a guardrail, and then flipped—constituted willful misconduct...

Acknowledging that it was possible for an employer to establish impossibility as an affirmative defense to an application for an additional award for a violation of a specific safety requirement (“VSSR”), the Supreme Court of Ohio held that...

An employer was not entitled to a reduction in a workers’ compensation award on the basis that an employee had failed to use safety devices (seat belts and a safety hat) provided by the employer [see Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.120.5] because the...

An appellate court in Ohio recently affirmed the award of additional benefits based upon the employer’s violation of a specific safety requirement (VSSR) associated with the spontaneous cycling of a mechanical power press that caused claimant’s...

It was proper for the Utah Labor Commission to determine that an employer had not willfully or deliberately bypassed a safety devise in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 34A-2-301(1)(d)(2015), where a manager credibly testified that he had not overridden...