Search      Advanced Search | Browse By Topic
Magazine Content
Home
Features
Columnists
Industry Risk Reports
In-Depth Series
Special Reports
Point/Counterpoint
R&I One® Content
News & Analysis
Editor's Choice Stories
Resources and Tools
Power Broker® Directory
Risk InnovatorTM
Emerging Risks
Top Employee Benefits Consultant
Executives To Watch
Insights
Industry Events
WorkersComp Forum
Award Nominations
Webinars
RSS
R&I Information
Subscription Center
Advertiser Information
About Us
Contact Us
 

Newsletter Sign-up

Click on the name of the free newsletter below to preview:

R&I One®
WORKERSCOMP Forum TM Update
HTML Text
E-Mail Address:


Click here to unsubscribe
Privacy Policy
Preferences

 

Employer prevented from raising immunity defense in civil action

In Florida, where the employer denies a workers' compensation claim on the basis that the worker's alleged exposure did not occur in the course and scope of her employment, the worker is not required to litigate her claim to completion before filing a civil action.

Print Email Add to Facebook Add to Twitter Add to LinkedIn Write to the Editor Reprints

Case name: Rush v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. d/b/a AT&T Florida, No. 3:10cv436/MCR/EMT (N.D. Fla. 02/17/11).

Ruling: The U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida held that a worker was not required to litigate her workers' compensation claim to completion before proceeding with a civil action.

What it means: In Florida, where the employer denies a workers' compensation claim on the basis that the worker's alleged exposure did not occur in the course and scope of her employment, the worker is not required to litigate her workers' compensation claim to completion before filing a civil action.

Summary: The worker filed a petition for workers' compensation benefits alleging exposure to toxic mold, methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, and other complications related to "sick building syndrome." In response, the employer argued that the worker's alleged exposure did not occur in the course and scope of her employment and that she did not suffer an injury by accident. Prior to the final hearing, the worker dismissed her case before any determination on the merits of her claim. The worker then sued her employer for negligence. The employer argued that the worker's remedies were limited to benefits payable under the workers' compensation law, and therefore, she should be required to litigate her claims to conclusion in the workers' compensation arena before proceeding with a civil action. The U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida disagreed and allowed the worker's suit to continue.

The employer contended that employees must exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit in civil court. A prior case explained that when the employer asserts in the workers' compensation proceedings that the accident was not within the course and scope of employment, the employer cannot later raise a workers' compensation immunity defense in the civil action. The two defenses are irreconcilably inconsistent, the court said. The employer asserted that the workers' compensation law did not cover the worker's injury. Therefore, the worker was not barred from pursuing her claim in court.

Read more at the WorkersComp Forum homepage.

April 4, 2011

Copyright 2011© LRP Publications

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RISK logo
 

Back to top

Entire contents copyright © 2013 Risk and Insurance® All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without written permission.