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.
The Supreme Court of Utah noted that although the intentional tort exception to workers’ compensation exclusivity clearly applied to claims governed by the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA), the issue had never been decided for claims governed by the state’s Occupational Disease Act (ODA). Accordingly, where the worker sustained lead poisoning brought about, he contended, by intentional exposure to excessive amounts of lead in the workplace, the trial court had to determine first if his lead poisoning was a physical injury or an occupational disease. Once that issue was determined, the trial court was required to rule as to whether the intentional tort exception applied to the tort claim.
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 Kay v. Barnes Bullets, 2021 UT 64, 2021 Utah LEXIS 143 (Nov. 4, 2021)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 103.03.
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.