Willful Misconduct: An Employer’s Tool to Bar Virginia Workers’ Compensation 好处

在弗吉尼亚州. 代码§65.2-306, an employee who otherwise suffered a compensable workplace accident may be denied workers’ compensation benefits if the employer proves that the employee was engaged in a form of willful misconduct at the time of the accident. 

Whether an employee’s conduct rises to the level of willful misconduct is a question of fact that will be determined by the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission.   When an employee places him/herself into a dangerous position which he/she was not required to be in for any employment task, 该员工可能被视为故意行为不端.  例如, an employee was denied workers’ compensation benefits when she was told by a supervisor not to move boxes without help.  The employee proceeded to move boxes on her own and was injured while moving boxes as a result.  The Commission determined her actions rose to the level of willful misconduct and her injury was not compensable.  Tinsley v. 亚历山大医院， 60 oic 454 (1981).

故意不当行为的具体形式在弗吉尼亚州概述. 代码§65.2-306，他们说:

“A. No compensation shall be awarded to the employee or his dependents for an injury or death caused by:

1. 员工故意行为不当或故意自残;
2. 雇员企图伤害他人;
3. 员工的陶醉;
4. The employee's willful failure or refusal to use a safety appliance or perform a duty required by statute;
5. The employee's willful breach of any reasonable rule or regulation adopted by the employer and brought, 事故发生前, to the knowledge of the employee; or
6. The employee's use of a nonprescribed controlled substance identified as such in Chapter 34 (§ 54.1-3400节.第54章).1.”

以违反安全规定为依据的故意不当行为辩护胜诉, an employer must establish that (1) the subject safety rule was reasonable; (2) the safety rule was known to the employee; (3) the safety rule was for the employee’s benefit; and (4) the employee intentionally engaged in the forbidden act.    通常, 职前的文书工作, 显示内部安全会议的出席表, 员工手册条款, and safety handbooks serve as the best evidence in support of an employer’s willful misconduct defense.

Employers do not need to prove that the employee was purposefully trying to break a safety rule at the time of the accident.  米尔斯v. Va. 选举. & 电力有限公司., 90 S.E.2d 124 (1955).  然而, it is important for employers to know that an employee’s gross negligence alone does not rise to the level of willful misconduct. 鲍尔曼v. 费尔法克斯公立学校, 59 O.I.C. 13 (1980).  故意的不当行为需要的不仅仅是疏忽.   例如，1994年向索赔人提供了福利 鲍曼 when he decided to jump off of a roof instead of descending with the use of a ladder.  The Commission held that the employee simply used “bad judgment in the manner he chose to descend” from the roof and did not violate the safety rule requiring him to immediately report unsafe conditions to his supervisor.    在另一个案例中, an employee stood on the top rung of a ladder and also chose a ladder that was too short for the particular task but those actions were not the reasons for barring his workers’ compensation benefits.  The decision to use a short ladder and stand on the top rung of the ladder was simply deemed to be bad judgment.  布朗诉. 鲍威尔油漆公司., 68 O.I.C. 113 (1988).

重要的是，在Va下. 代码§65.2-306 (B)，根据第65条提出故意不当行为抗辩的个人或实体.2-306 (A)有举证责任.  然而，这个负担有一个例外.  This exception arises if employer raises a defense involving the employee's intoxication or use of a nonprescribed controlled substance, “and there was at the time of the injury an amount of alcohol or nonprescribed controlled substance in the bodily fluids of the employee which (i) is equal to or greater than the standard set forth in §18.2-266, 或(ii)使用非处方受控物质的情况, yields a positive test result from a Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 政府 (SAMHSA) certified laboratory, 应当有一个可反驳的推定, which presumption shall not be available if the employee dies as a result of his injuries, that the employee was intoxicated due to the consumption of alcohol or using a nonprescribed controlled substance at the time of his injury.” This presumption may only be overcome if the injured employee presents clear and convincing evidence regarding the alleged misconduct.

利用弗吉尼亚的防御. 代码§65.2-306, an employer is required to file a notice of its intent to rely upon a misconduct defense.  如委员会规则1-10所述, an employer must provide its notice of willful misconduct defense no less than fifteen days prior to the hearing date.  An employer provides this notice by filing a written notification with the Commission and mailing a copy of that notification to the employee.  在此通知中, it is critical that the employer include a statement explaining the particular misconduct that it relies upon when raising the willful misconduct defense.

It is vitally important to carefully select both evidence in support of an employer’s willful misconduct written notification statement under Rule 1-10 and evidence in support of willful misconduct at a hearing thereafter.  Employers should seek the advice of counsel when navigating willful misconduct defenses under Va. 代码§65.2-306.

克里Stolz 是一个澳门十大正规网赌网址 & 科沃德律师专注于工人赔偿事务.