Government Issues and Politics
Insurance and Employee Benefits
Business and Economic Information
Human Resources and Safety
Education Policy and Practice
Training and Consulting Services
Human Resources and Safety
HR Issues and Laws Safety and Health Tools and Forms Comp and Benefits Publications and Posters Training and Programs

Employer Immunity from Civil Lawsuits by Injured Workers: What are the Exceptions?

By John M. Letizia and Neil J. Ambrose; lawyers@laclaw.com

 

This article is intended to provide general information only. It is not intended as legal advice or as a solution to an individual problem. You are encouraged to consult with appropriate legal counsel prior to relying on this document in whole or in part.

     Many employers do not realize that there are situations in which injured workers can file and collect workers’ compensation benefits and also sue their employer for the same accident. Employers must be prepared to address these exceptions to the workers’ compensation exclusive remedy rule, because in many instances these lawsuits are not covered by the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance policy or even its general liability policy. This article is intended to provide an overview of those areas in which the employer’s liability may go beyond simply providing workers’ compensation benefits for an injured employee.

The Exclusive Remedy Rule
     Under the Connecticut Workers’ Compensation Act, an employee generally surrenders the right to bring a lawsuit against his or her employer for a work-related accident and injury. In return, the employer is required to provide workers’ compensation benefits for any injury arising out of and in the course of employment, regardless of the employee’s negligence in causing the injury. This obligation of the employer and employee is called the "exclusive remedy," and applies except when the personal injury has been caused by the employee’s own "willful and serious" misconduct or by his or her intoxication.

In recent years, this "exclusive remedy" has been increasingly challenged by plaintiffs’ attorneys in an attempt to secure a greater recovery for the injured worker and to go outside the workers’ compensation benefits and award structure. One way in which attorneys seek to obtain greater recovery is to characterize the employee’s injury as resulting from the employer’s willful or intentional acts. However, this intentional act exception to the exclusive remedy rule is limited.

Intentional Acts By the Employer
     In Mingachos v. CBS, Inc. (1985), the Connecticut Supreme Court adopted the rule that nothing short of deliberate intention to produce the employee’s injury will fall outside the exclusivity rule and permit an action for damages against the employer in civil court. This ruling was upheld in Nolan v. Borkowski (1988), where the Court affirmed the summary dismissal of a plaintiff’s action against her employer. In Nolan, although the plaintiff alleged that her employer had deliberately disregarded her doctor’s restrictions on the amount of weight she could lift and the hours she could work, the Court found that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the employer had taken these actions with the intent to cause her further injury. On the other hand, in Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp. (1994), the Supreme Court allowed an injured employee to sue the employer for a compensable workers’ compensation injury in which benefits were paid.

     In the Suarez case, an employee suffered a partial amputation to his right hand as a result of attempting to clean hot molten plastic out of a molding machine while the machine was in operation. In that case, the employee alleged that to save money the employer required the employees to clean the machine while it was operating, refused to allow the employees to use safer cleaning methods and refused to equip the machine with the protective cover or other device that would have prevented injury. The employer attempted to have the case dismissed on summary judgment based on the exclusive remedy of the Connecticut Workers’ Compensation Act. In denying the motion for summary judgment the Court found that there was an issue for the jury to hear as to whether the employer’s actions were "intentional" and therefore outside of the exclusive remedy rule and that the employee’s collection of workers’ compensation benefits on the injury did not preclude the filing of a lawsuit.

Discharge and Sexual Assault Cases
     In many discharge cases, employees will claim that the manner of the discharge caused emotional distress and justifies suing the employer in court. In some instances, the employee alleged that the employer intentionally or negligently caused this distress in the way it handled the discharge. Prior to the July 1, 1993 Reform Act, employers could probably bar the negligent infliction of an emotional distress lawsuit by arguing that this type of claim was covered under the Connecticut Workers’ Compensation Act and its exclusive remedy rule. However, after July 1, 1993, the Connecticut Workers’ Compensation Act no longer recognizes distress or emotional distress claims, so that employers may now be subject to civil liability not only for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, but also for negligent infliction of emotional distress claim. (The employee’s recovery in such a lawsuit can be many times higher than the workers’ compensation award.)

     Another example of a claim that may expose an employer to workers’ compensation and civil liability is sexual harassment or sexual assault, especially if the assaulted employee suffers a physical injury as a result of the act. In such a case, the employee could file for workers’ compensation benefits and file a sexual harassment complaint against the employer.

Failure to Carry Insurance and Independent Contractors
     The Connecticut Workers’ Compensation Act addresses other possible civil actions against employers. For example, if an employer fails to carry workers’ compensation coverage and an employee is injured on the job, the employer may be sued in civil court by the employee in addition to the employee’s collecting workers’ compensation benefits. The employee is allowed to sue the employer and claim damages only if the employer’s negligence caused the injury and the employer failed to comply with the workers’ compensation insurance requirement.

     However, the Connecticut Workers’ Compensation Act does afford some protection to employers who mistakenly classify an employee as an independent contractor and therefore do not obtain insurance coverage. This protection from a civil action is limited to employers who: (1) hire an individual who presents himself or herself as an independent contractor; and (2) rely in good faith on the representation of the individual as well as any other indications that would lead an employer to believe the individual was an individual contractor.

Conclusion
     An employer should be aware of these current exceptions to the "exclusive remedy" rule of the Connecticut Workers’ Compensation Act. Employer immunity from civil liability for employee injuries is being increasingly challenged, and it may be merely a matter of time before new exceptions are formulated.

     If you have any questions or need further information regarding this article, please do not hesitate to contact any of the above attorneys at Letizia, Ambrose & Cohen, One Church Street, New Haven, Connecticut 06510, telephone: (203) 787-7000, facsimile: (203) 787-7001, and e-mail: lawyers@laclaw.com