Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Two core concepts of the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act: the “arising out of” requirement and the “in the course of employment” requirement are not synonymous. Both conditions must be proved in order to justify the award of benefits, held a state appellate court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of a claim filed by a limousine driver regarding injuries he allegedly received in a single car collision because he could not explain and, therefore, had failed to prove that the accident and his resulting injuries arose out of the employment.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Sorour v. Avalon Transp., LLC, 2019 Va. App. LEXIS 275 (Nov. 26, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 7.04.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see
Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at www.lexisnexis.com/wcnews.