Opinion ID: 2670492
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: lbp as uninsured statutory employer

Text: Rodriguez argues that even if Ubaldo was LBP's statutory employer, pursuant to Code § 65.2-805 of the Act, LBP waived 6 I take issue with the majority's indication that, initially, LBP argued and the circuit court held that Ubaldo and LBP were statutory co-employees, citing this Court's unpublished order in Rodriguez' first appeal, Rodriguez v. Leesburg Business Park, LLC, Record No. 102127, slip op. at 4 (Jan. 6, 2012) (per curiam). At no time did the circuit court or LBP refer to LBP and Ubaldo as statutory co-employees. (Emphasis added.) This phrase was of Rodriguez' making, and then attributed to LBP and the circuit court by the current majority of this Court in its unpublished order remanding this case for reconsideration, as well as in its instant opinion. The circuit court actually found in its initial ruling that [Ubaldo] was a statutory co-employee of LBP. (Emphasis added.) This finding no doubt derived from LBP's use of this phrase in the context of framing the issue as a question of whether [Ubaldo] was a statutory employee of LBP, as well as an employee of EE Reed. LBP otherwise referred to Ubaldo as LBP's statutory co-employee. LBP also referred to itself as Ubaldo's co-employer and his statutory employer. Thus, while LBP's phraseology may have been novel for workers' compensation law, it did not reflect a misapprehension that LBP and Ubaldo were somehow statutory co-employees. 27 its defense of immunity in this action because LBP failed to purchase workers' compensation insurance covering Reed's employees, or to qualify as a self-insurer. On the facts of this case, LBP's uninsured status is immaterial. Under the Act, both Reed, as Ulbaldo's immediate employer, and LBP, as Ulbaldo's statutory employer, would have been liable to Ulbaldo and his statutory beneficiaries for his work-related accident. Upon Ulbaldo's death, the beneficiaries would have been entitled to benefits under the Act from either Reed or LBP, but not from both. David White Crane Service v. Howell, 282 Va. 323, 329, 714 S.E.2d 572, 576 (2011). The beneficiaries pursued their rights and remedies under the Act and obtained a full recovery of workers' compensation benefits from Reed. Therefore, as the beneficiaries have received the one full recovery they were entitled to under the Act, id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), they would be barred from pursuing other rights and remedies against LBP under the Act's exclusive remedy provision. Code § 65.2-307(A). I would thus hold the trial court correctly rejected Rodriguez' argument that, because LBP was uninsured, it waived its immunity to suit in this common law action. For these reasons, I would affirm the judgment of the circuit court in sustaining LBP's plea in bar pursuant to the Act's exclusive remedy provision. I therefore dissent to the 28 majority's conclusion that LBP was not Ubaldo's statutory employer and its reversal of the trial court's judgment. I concur, however, in the majority's rejection of Rodriguez' jurisdictional argument based on Rule 1:1, as the majority addresses in footnote 4 of its opinion. 29