Five Recent Cases You Should Know About (4/19/2010)

Five Recent Cases You Should Know About (4/19/2010)

Larson’s Spotlight on Black Lung, Physical Ability Test, Hugging and Deviation From Employment, Credit for Allowance Paid to Furloughed Worker, and Assault Related to Theft of Employee’s Car. Larson's surveys the latest case developments that you need to know about. Thomas A. Robinson, the staff writer for Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, has compiled the list below.

KY: Court of Appeals Finds Pneumoconiosis Statute Unconstitutional

The Kentucky Court of Appeals, in a divided opinion, recently held unconstitutional Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.316, to the extent that it requires a coal workers' pneumoconiosis ("CWP") claimant to come forward with clear and convincing evidence in order to overcome the consensus of a three-physician panel who have reviewed the claimant's chest x-rays and indicated the claimant did not have the condition. The majority opinion agreed with the retired coal worker who contended, in relevant part, that the "clear and convincing evidence" standard for coal workers sharply contrasted with the prevailing standard applied to workers seeking compensation for other pneumoconiosis claims such as exposure to limestone, various particulates, talc, and graphite.

FREE VERSION: Access the case on lexisONE free case law. Click on tab for Free Case Law. Click on the radio button for Search by Citation. Enter this citation: 2010 Ky. App. LEXIS 69. Then click on the red button Search for Free. Note: If you haven’t registered for free at lexisONE, you will be prompted to do so in order to access the free case law.

FULLY FEATURED VERSION: Lexis.com subscribers can read the fully featured case here. See generally Larson's Workers' Compensation Law, § 52.01.

WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN lexisONE AND LexisNexis? Compare the differences between lexisONE free case law and LexisNexis fully featured case law to see what you get with each service.

US: Physical Ability Test for Female Truck Driver Was Pretextual

Reversing summary judgment that had favored the defendant, a trucking company and former employer of the plaintiff, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently determined that a female truck driver had raised a triable issue that her former employer's administration of a physical ability test (PAT) and its decision to fire her in February 2005 when she failed the test was a pretext for intentional sex discrimination. The plaintiff had successfully performed her job prior to a work-related injury, her injury had virtually healed, and her physician indicated she should be able to return to her work without difficulty. Important to the Fourth Circuit's decision was the fact that the employer had not required injured male employees to take the test.

FREE VERSION: Access the case on lexisONE free case law. Click on tab for Free Case Law. Click on the radio button for Search by Citation. Enter this citation: 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 7352. Then click on the red button Search for Free. Note: If you haven’t registered for free at lexisONE, you will be prompted to do so in order to access the free case law.

FULLY FEATURED VERSION: Lexis.com subscribers can read the fully featured case here. See generally Larson's Workers' Compensation Law, § 104.07.

WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN lexisONE AND LexisNexis? Compare the differences between lexisONE free case law and LexisNexis fully featured case law to see what you get with each service.

AR: Hugging Co-Employee While Exiting Premises Was Not Deviation From Employment

Arkansas has one of the most restrictive definitions of "injury" within the workers' compensation system. By special statutory provision, a compensable injury does not include an “[i]njury which was inflicted upon the employee at a time when employment services were not being performed” [Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(B)(iii) (Supp. 2009)]. In an April 14, 2010 decision, the Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed a decision by the state's Workers' Compensation Commission that had found that a fast-food employee's injuries were not compensable, that they were sustained in a fall after she had clocked out for the day and immediately after she had hugged a co-worker as the employee sought to exit the employment premises. The court of appeals found that the injured workers' actions were not the sort of deviation to take her outside the "performing employment services" provision of the statute.

FREE VERSION: Access the case on lexisONE free case law. Click on tab for Free Case Law. Click on the radio button for Search by Citation. Enter this citation: 2010 Ark. App. LEXIS 316. Then click on the red button Search for Free. Note: If you haven’t registered for free at lexisONE, you will be prompted to do so in order to access the free case law.

FULLY FEATURED VERSION: Lexis.com subscribers can read the fully featured case here. See generally Larson's Workers' Compensation Law, § 3.01.

WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN lexisONE AND LexisNexis? Compare the differences between lexisONE free case law and LexisNexis fully featured case law to see what you get with each service.

PA: Employer Not Allowed Credit For "Allowance" Paid to Furloughed Worker

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently held that an employer who, for reasons unrelated to a claimant's work-related injury, furloughed the claimant in accordance with the terms of a collective bargaining agreement and who later recalled the claimant, is not entitled to a credit against the claimant's workers' compensation benefits for the amount of the furlough allowance; it was not a severance benefit.

FREE VERSION: Access the case on lexisONE free case law. Click on tab for Free Case Law. Click on the radio button for Search by Citation. Enter this citation: 2010 Pa. LEXIS 701. Then click on the red button Search for Free. Note: If you haven’t registered for free at lexisONE, you will be prompted to do so in order to access the free case law.

FULLY FEATURED VERSION: Lexis.com subscribers can read the fully featured case here. See generally Larson's Workers' Compensation Law, §§ 82.01, 157.01.

WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN lexisONE AND LexisNexis? Compare the differences between lexisONE free case law and LexisNexis fully featured case law to see what you get with each service.

NY: Assault Related to Theft of Employee's Car Was Not Compensable—Insufficient Work Connection

A New York appellate court recently held that an altercation between a store employee and an individual who allegedly stole the employee's car was insufficiently connected to the employment so as to support the employee's claim for psychological injuries sustained in a fight that occurred in the employer's parking lot.

FREE VERSION: Access the case on lexisONE free case law. Click on tab for Free Case Law. Click on the radio button for Search by Citation. Enter this citation: 2010 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2831. Then click on the red button Search for Free. Note: If you haven’t registered for free at lexisONE, you will be prompted to do so in order to access the free case law.

FULLY FEATURED VERSION: Lexis.com subscribers can read the fully featured case here. See generally Larson's Workers' Compensation Law, § 8.02.

WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN lexisONE AND LexisNexis? Compare the differences between lexisONE free case law and LexisNexis fully featured case law to see what you get with each service.

Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law

 Offer good thru April 2010.