Title: Prince William Cty. Service Auth. v. Harper

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

Present: All the Justices 
 
PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY 
SERVICE AUTHORITY, ET AL. 
OPINION BY JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR. 
v.  Record No. 971519 
September 18, 1998 
 
LORRAINE HARPER 
 
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
We consider whether an employee's false statement on an 
employment application, that she had not been convicted of a 
felony, bars her receipt of workers' compensation benefits. 
 
Lorraine M. Harper pled guilty to the felonies of insurance 
fraud and criminal conspiracy in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 
on June 5, 1992.  On July 30, 1993, she completed an application 
for employment with the Prince William County Service Authority.  
The employment application contained the following question:  "Have 
you ever been convicted of a law violation, including moving 
traffic violations but excluding offenses committed before your 
eighteenth birthday which were finally adjudicated in a Juvenile 
Court or under a Youth Offender Law?  You may omit traffic 
violations for which you paid $30.00 or less."  Harper responded, 
"no" when she answered this question.  The employment application 
also contained the following certification:  "I hereby certify that 
this application is a complete record and that all entries given 
are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.  I understand 
that any attempt to practice deception or fraud in this application 
is grounds for disqualification or dismissal."  Harper concealed 
her felony convictions when she completed the employment 
application. 
 
Harper, who was hired as a wastewater treatment plant operator 
trainee with the Prince William County Service Authority, sustained 
injuries to her left wrist and coccyx while performing her duties 
on June 14, 1994.  Harper and the Authority executed agreements 
providing for the payment of disability benefits for certain time 
she missed from work. 
 
In February 1995, Harper filed an application for benefits 
based upon a change in condition with the Workers' Compensation 
Commission (Commission), seeking disability benefits for various 
periods from January 1995 through July 1995.  During the course of 
that proceeding, the Authority learned that Harper had failed to 
disclose her felony convictions. 
 
At a hearing before a deputy commissioner, Sherry Boyce, 
personnel director for the Authority, testified that the Authority 
does not automatically disqualify employment applicants who have 
felony convictions, but that each applicant with a felony 
conviction is considered on "a case-by-case basis."  Boyce 
testified that the Authority would not have hired Harper had she 
disclosed her felony convictions because of the nature and recent 
date of the convictions. 
 
2
 
Harper resigned from her employment with the Authority before 
it became aware of her felony convictions.  Boyce testified that 
had Harper been employed at the time the Authority learned of her 
misrepresentations, it would have terminated her employment. 
 
The Authority asserted before the deputy commissioner that 
Harper is barred from receiving workers' compensation benefits 
because of her false representations.  The deputy commissioner, 
rejecting the Authority's assertion, concluded that Harper's 
"felony conviction[s] would not have automatically resulted in the 
[Authority's] rejection of her employment application.  The 
falsehood itself did not contribute to the nature of her injury, 
which would prevent benefits as in those cases where a claimant 
lied about her physical condition."  The deputy commissioner 
entered an award in favor of Harper against the Authority. 
 
The Authority appealed the deputy commissioner's determination 
to the Commission which also rejected the Authority's contention.  
The Authority appealed the Commission's award to the Court of 
Appeals, which affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that the 
evidence of record failed to demonstrate that "the 
misrepresentation, that Harper had not committed a crime, was 
causally related to Harper's injury."  Prince William County Serv. 
Auth. v. Harper, 25 Va. App. 166, 170, 487 S.E.2d 246, 248 (1997).  
The Authority appeals. 
 
3
 
Relying upon Marval Poultry Co. v. Johnson, 224 Va. 597, 299 
S.E.2d 343 (1983), the Authority argues that since Harper obtained 
employment through fraud or material misrepresentation, she is 
barred from receiving workers' compensation benefits because there 
is no valid contract of hire and she may not benefit from her 
fraudulent conduct.  Continuing, the Authority asserts that a 
causal relationship exists between Harper's misrepresentation and 
her work-related injury because had she revealed her felony 
convictions, she would not have been hired and the employer-
employee relationship would not have existed.  We find no merit in 
the Authority's contentions. 
 
In Falls Church Constr. Co. v. Laidler, 254 Va. 474, 477-78, 
493 S.E.2d 521, 523 (1997), we stated the following principles 
which are pertinent here: 
 
"An employee's false representation in an employment 
application will bar a later claim for workers' 
compensation benefits if the employer proves that 1) the 
employee intentionally made a material false 
representation; 2) the employer relied on that 
misrepresentation; 3) the employer's reliance resulted in 
the consequent injury; and 4) there is a causal 
relationship between the injury in question and the 
misrepresentation." 
 
 
Applying these principles, we hold that Harper is not barred 
from receiving workers' compensation benefits because the Authority 
failed to adduce evidence which established a causal relationship 
between her work-related injury and her misrepresentation of her 
criminal record.  Boyce's testimony that the Authority would not 
 
4
have hired Harper had it been aware of her felony convictions is 
not sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a causal 
relationship between Harper's work-related injury and her 
misrepresentation. 
 
We reject the Authority's contention that our decision in 
Marval bars Harper's receipt of workers' compensation benefits.  In 
Marval, we considered whether an employee was entitled to workers' 
compensation benefits after the employee was discharged by his 
employer for dishonesty.  As we recently explained, "[o]ur holding 
in Marval did not address issues of reliance or causation.  Rather, 
we held only that the justified termination of an employee for 
dishonesty barred his later claim for benefits under a change in 
condition application."  Laidler, 254 Va. at 478, 493 S.E.2d at 
523.  Hence, Marval is inapposite to this case in which the issue 
of causation is dispositive. 
 
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Court of 
Appeals properly affirmed the Commission's decision.  See Code 
§ 65.2-706.  Therefore, we will affirm the judgment of the Court of 
Appeals. 
Affirmed. 
 
5