Source: https://premiumreduction.blog/2016/11/09/legal-corner-19/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 19:50:12+00:00

Document:
A manager for Tyson Foods with a long history of progressive discipline for bullying subordinates was terminated after he intimidated and was condescending toward others around him and undermined a supervisor. He sued alleging that Tyson terminated him, in part, because he had just taken FMLA leave a few weeks earlier. Recognizing that Tyson would have terminated him even if he had not taken FMLA leave, the courts dismissed the retaliation claim. Shell v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
In Ramirez Farias v. Able Building Maintenance, 2016 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS, an employee who suffered an industrial injury to her neck, back, right wrist, and right shoulder was treating outside of an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) agreement when her claim was denied. After her claim was accepted, the WCAB, in a split panel opinion, found that she was required to transfer treatment to the ADR agreement’s exclusive provider network pursuant to the provisions in Labor Code § 3201.5 and the terms of the ADR agreement.
In Ease Entertainment v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, a first assistant director was denied access to shoot footage on a train trestle in Georgia, but she did it anyway with catastrophic results. While shooting, a train hit the film set causing one crewmember’s death and injuring several others. The director was charged with and found guilty of both manslaughter and criminal trespass and was placed on probation through Georgia’s First Offender law. No conviction is recorded if she passes probation.
The Ninth Circuit vacated a summary judgment award in favor of two asbestos-laden product manufacturers accused of causing a Navy machinist’s lung disease and death and gave the family’s lawsuit new life. The two Virginia-based defendants, General Dynamics Corp. and Huntington Ingalls Inc., used the government-contractor defense, but the high court held that a product supplier must show that it actually and reasonably relied on a knowledgeable intermediary to warn end users in order to establish a defense under the sophisticated-intermediary doctrine.
In Great Cleaning Corp. v. Bello, an employee had worked full-time for three weeks and part-time for 13 weeks prior to her injury. An appellate court found that although she would have earned a higher wage had she not been injured, her AWW had to be computed using the 13-week method set forth in § 440.14(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003).
In Bayer v. Panduit Corp.Area Erectors, 2016 IL 119553, 2016 Ill. LEXIS 772 (Sept. 22, 2016), the Supreme Court of Illinois ruled that absent another agreement, the gross amount of reimbursement subject to attorney fees includes not only benefits already paid at the time of the third-party recovery, but the benefits the employer will not have to pay in the future as a result of the worker’s recovery in the third-party action.
In Barnes v. Sun Chemical Corp., a worker was killed when a 1600-pound bag of press cake fell from a mezzanine while being stacked by a forklift operator. The deceased employee’s estate sought the intentional-tort exception, arguing that the employer knew employees used a particular forklift method that contributed to the accident and also knew that employees walked in the restricted area beneath the mezzanine.
In Fogerty v. Armstrong, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 925, an appellate court held an employee could maintain a tort action against a co-employee who was allegedly negligent in the operation of the employer’s forklift. In most cases, injuries incurred in the course and scope of employment would fall within the employer’s duty to provide a safe workplace and co-workers would be immune. However, under the state’s co-employee immunity rule, an employee who violated a personal duty of care separate from the employer’s duty to provide a safe workplace can be held liable. In this case, the co-worker did not operate the forklift in a safe manner, by lowering the forks without taking any steps to warn or protect the injured employee.
In Nichols v. Fairway Bldg. Prods., a forklift operator injured his back when the hydraulic lift dock that supported the forklift collapsed. At first, the injuries did not appear serious and he tried several non-surgical treatments without success and eventually underwent three surgeries. At maximum medical improvement, he had significant permanent physical restriction. While the employer argued the worker had suffered from some injuries prior to his work accident, the Workers’ Compensation Court entered judgment in favor of the employee, finding him permanently and totally disabled as a result of his workplace injury. Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, but did modify the award of temporary total disability.
In Phillips v. Wyman Gordon, the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the workers’ compensation judge’s decision awarding benefits to a worker, who alleged that he contracted Guillain-Barre syndrome after receiving a flu shot at work. It agreed that the flu shot at work arose in the course and scope of employment, although the shot was voluntary and there were no benefits denied or received as a result of receiving the shot. The treating doctor testified that the machine operator’s condition was caused by the flu shot because there were no other potential causes identified and that GBS is one of the risk factors of a flu shot.
In Russell v. Dana Corp., 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 520 (Aug. 1, 2016), aff’d and adopted, 2016 Tenn. LEXIS 519 (Aug. 1, 2016), a Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court of Tennessee held that a state trial court erred when it denied an employer’s motion to remove an injured employee’s treating physician. The evidence showed that while the employee had achieved MMI more than 20 years earlier, the employee’s physician was still prescribing some 510 pills each month, many of which were Schedule II controlled substances.
In Cantrell v. Yates Servs., LLC, an employee missed 20 consecutive days of work and both parties agreed he was unable to perform the functions of his job. The federal district court found that under Tennessee law, an employer may terminate an at-will employee who is unable to perform satisfactorily because of physical infirmities, even though the physical infirmity resulted from an on-the-job compensable accident.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 3201
 v. 
 v. 
 § 440
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.