|
|||
|
|
|
Conditions of employment to determine status of worker's claim
In Vermont, under the positional risk doctrine an employee's injury arises out of his employment if the conditions and obligations of his employment place him in the position where he was injured. Even when an injury occurs away from the workplace, its cause can be distinct in time and place.
Case name: Cyr v. McDermott's, Inc., No. 2008-290 (Vt. 03/05/10). Ruling: In a 3-2 decision, the Vermont Supreme Court reversed the commissioner of labor's finding that a worker was intoxicated at the time of his injury and that his claim was barred. The court remanded the case for a threshold determination of whether the injury occurred in the course of the worker's employment.
Summary: An employee for a milk hauling company was severely burned when he accidentally drank a caustic chemical used to clean the trucks. A coworker offered the employee an abandoned bottle of soda which the employee took home. After drinking a few beers, he drank from the bottle and immediately felt burning in his mouth, throat and stomach. He was rushed to the hospital, where his blood work indicated he was intoxicated. The employer argued that his intoxication was a complete bar to any benefits claim. The Vermont Supreme Court determined the commissioner of labor erred in finding the claim was barred by the intoxication defense because the commissioner failed to initially address whether the employee's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. The high court determined that the employee was put in a positional risk situation. His injury arose out of his work because his acceptance of the bottle "put the mechanism of injury in motion." It also concluded that he was not intoxicated when he was given the bottle. It remanded for a determination of whether the employee's injury occurred in the course of his employment. The dissent observed that the facts of the case were "unusual and extreme" and that the case was an example of the adage "[e]xceptional cases must not be permitted to beget bad law."It noted that Vermont's intoxication defense is unique because it completely bars workers' compensation benefits for an injury that is caused "by or during" the employee's intoxication, rather than requiring a causal connection like most states. The dissent argued that the majority ignored the "during" aspect of the law, as the employee's injury was caused by drinking from the bottle when the employee was drunk. Read more at the WORKERSCOMP ForumTM homepage. April 26, 2010 Copyright 2010© LRP Publications |
|
|
|
Entire contents copyright © 2013 Risk and Insurance® All rights reserved.
May not be reproduced in any form without written permission.
|