By Thomas A. Robinson, Co-Editor-in-Chief, Workers’ Compensation Emerging Issues Analysis (LexisNexis) As we move through the third decade of the twenty-first century, the United States remains...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Industrially injured workers in California are entitled to receive...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 88, No. 9 September 2023 A Report of En Banc and Significant Panel Decisions of the WCAB and Selected Court Opinions of Related Interest, With a Digest of WCAB Decisions...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board It is well-settled law that federally recognized Indian Tribes have...
By Hon. Robert G. Rassp Disclaimer: The material and any opinions contained in this treatise are solely those of the authors and are not the opinions of the Department of Industrial Relations, Division...
Utilizing the co-employee “intentional injury” exception to Alabama’s exclusive remedy rule [see Ala. Code § 25-5-11(b)], the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed a trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of two co-employee/defendants in a civil action filed against them by an injured worker. The worker sustained severe burns when the employer began using a process of mixing materials that produced a chemical reaction and explosion that splashed molten lead onto the claimant. The worker contended his co-employees engaged in conduct that was substantially certain to cause injury. The Supreme Court found that the plaintiff worker had failed to show any actual evidence that the co-employees intended him harm. Moreover, there was no evidence that the co-employees were aware that the employment actions were substantially certain to result in harm to the plaintiff.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the co-Editor-in-Chief and 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 Means v. Glover, 2021 Ala. LEXIS 55 (June 4, 2021)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 111.02[1], note 4.
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.