I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1715

Respecting the relationship between workers’ compensation benefits and the

benefits available under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker

Protection Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 25, 1995

Mr. GOODLING (for himself, Mr. FAZIO of California, Mr. BALLENGER, Mr.

ANDREWS, Mr. FAWELL, Mr. STENHOLM, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mrs.

THURMAN, Mr. FUNDERBURK, and Mr. DOOLEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities

A BILL

Respecting the relationship between workers’ compensation

benefits and the benefits available under the Migrant

and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

4 The Congress finds that—

5 (1) the fundamental premise of the workers’

6 compensation system, which is the exclusivity of

7 workers’ compensation for workplace injuries as an

8 alternative to a fault-based system relying on costly
2

•HR 1715 IH

1 and lengthy litigation in the courts, must be pre2 served,

3 (2) this premise was threatened by the decision

4 in 1990 of the United States Supreme Court in

5 Adams Fruit Co. Inc. v. Barrett, 494 U.S. 638,

6 which held that migrant and seasonal farmworkers

7 could bring a private right of action for certain job8 related injuries under the Migrant and Seasonal Ag9 ricultural Worker Protection Act even where the em10 ployer has provided workers’ compensation coverage

11 of such farmworkers,

12 (3) the Adams Fruit decision did not reflect the

13 intent of the Congress when it enacted the Migrant

14 and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act in

15 1982,

16 (4) the Adams Fruit decision singles out agri17 cultural employers as the only employers in America

18 who can be subjected to lawsuits as a result of work19 place injuries even where they have provided work20 ers’ compensation to their employees,

21 (5) Congress expressed its disapproval of the

22 Adams Fruit decision in Public Law 102–392 by

23 overturning the decision until July 6, 1993, and

24 (6) it is essential that the exclusivity of work25 ers’ compensation be permanently restored.
3

•HR 1715 IH

1 SEC. 2. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION.

2 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 504 of the Migrant and

3 Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (29 U.S.C.

4 1854) is amended by adding at the end thereof the follow5 ing new subsection:

6 ‘‘(d)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this

7 Act, where a State workers’ compensation law is applicable

8 and coverage is provided for a migrant or seasonal agricul9 tural worker, the workers’ compensation benefits shall be

10 the exclusive remedy for loss of such worker under this

11 Act in the case of bodily injury or death.

12 ‘‘(2) The exclusive remedy prescribed by paragraph

13 (1) precludes the recovery under subsection (c) of actual

14 damages for loss from an injury or death but does not

15 preclude recovery under subsection (c) for statutory dam16 ages or an injunction.’’.

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

18 subsection (a) shall apply to all cases in which a final judg19 ment has not been entered.

Æ