I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1999

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 5, 1993

Mr. FAZIO (for himself, Mr. LEHMAN, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. GOODLING, Mr.

DOOLEY, Mr. FAWELL, Mr. CONDIT, Mr. MATSUI, Mr. STENHOLM, Mr.

GUNDERSON, Mr. HERGER, Mr. LEWIS of California, Mr. DOOLITTLE,

Mr. PETRI, Mr. HENRY, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. PICKETT, Mr. PAYNE of Virginia, Mr. PENNY, Mr. DERRICK, Mr. SISISKY, Mrs. THURMAN, Mr. VALENTINE, Mr. LANCASTER, Mr. MINGE, Mr. HEFNER, Mr. MONTGOMERY,

Mr. BACCHUS of Florida, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr.

LEWIS of Florida, Mr. CANADY, Mr. HANSEN, Mr. SMITH of Oregon, Mr.

UPTON, Mr. PAXON, Mr. SARPALIUS, Mr. ORTIZ, Mr. HOLDEN, Mr.

LAROCCO, Mr. PARKER, Mr. THOMAS of California, Mr. WOLF, Mr.

BALLENGER, Mr. WALSH, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr.

GOODLATTE, Mr. BOEHNER, Mr. MCCOLLUM, Mr. POMBO, Mr. HUTTO,

Mr. ROWLAND, Mr. CAMP, and Mr. MCHUGH) introduced the following

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

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,
2

•HR 1999 IH

1 SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

2 The Congress finds that—

3 (1) the fundamental premise of the workers’

4 compensation system, which is the exclusivity of

5 workers’ compensation for workplace injuries as an

6 alternative to a fault-based system relying on costly

7 and lengthy litigation in the courts, must be pre8 served,

9 (2) this premise was threatened by the decision

10 in 1990 of the United States Supreme Court in

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

12 which held that migrant and seasonal farmworkers

13 could bring a private right of action for certain job14 related injuries under the Migrant and Seasonal Ag15 ricultural Worker Protection Act even where the em16 ployer has provided workers’ compensation coverage

17 of such farmworkers,

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

19 intent of the Congress when it enacted the Migrant

20 and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act in

21 1982,

22 (4) the Adams Fruit decision singles out agri23 cultural employers as the only employers in America

24 who can be subjected to lawsuits as a result of work25 place injuries even where they have provided work26 ers’ compensation to their employees,
3

•HR 1999 IH

1 (5) Congress expressed its disapproval of the

2 Adams Fruit decision in Public Law 102–392 by

3 overturning the decision until July 6, 1993, and

4 (6) it is essential that the exclusivity of work5 ers’ compensation be permanently restored.

6 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF EXPIRATION.

7 Section 325(c) of the Legislative Branch Appropria8 tions Act, 1993 (29 U.S.C. 1854 note) is amended to read

9 as follows:

10 ‘‘(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

11 subsection (a) shall apply to all cases in which a final judg12 ment has not been entered before October 6, 1992.’’.

Æ