Opinion ID: 1245205
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Issue on Appeal and the Nature of Appellant's Claims

Text: This appeal presents the issue of whether the exclusivity provisions of the West Virginia Workers' Compensation Act shield an employer from the injuries directly caused by its unlawful discriminatory conduct against an employee in the workplace. Stated differently, we consider on this appeal whether an employee may seek to recover under the WVHRA for actual injuries caused not by an injury received in the course of and arising out of his or her employment for which workers' compensation benefits would ordinarily be payable, but rather for actual injuries of a kind for which workers' compensation benefits are not ordinarily payable, which flow directly and uniquely from the employer's unlawful discrimination against the employee. Key to our consideration of the issues presented are the important policies codified within the Workers' Compensation Act and the WVHRA, both systems of legislative creation. This consideration leads us necessarily to distinguish not only the nature of the acts alleged to have caused the claimed injuries, but also the type of injuries for which recovery is claimed and whether or not such injuries depend for their viability upon an injury which was compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act. The essence of Messer's claims is that she sustained an aggravation or worsening of an underlying physical injury because of Appellees' refusal to abide by her work restrictions and that Appellees violated their obligation of accommodation and interaction under the WVHRA. In addition, she seeks recovery for non-physical injuries, which she describes as emotional distress, mental distress and anguish, stemming from the same refusal and violation, and for the nonphysical injuries she is seeking, according to her complaint, damages for mental and emotional distress, lost wages, value of lost benefits, cost and attorney fees, reinstatement, injunctive relief against future violations of the law, and such other and further relief as may upon the premises be appropriate. Messer contends some claimed injuries are not recoverable in a workers' compensation claim, but admits that others are. In its brief as amicus curiae, the HRC focuses its attention on Appellees' failure to accommodate, arguing [a]n action alleging breach of the duty to reasonably accommodate is not an action for workplace injury compensation. B.