Opinion ID: 2670492
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Controlling Statutes and Remedial Purpose

Text: By the terms of the Act's exclusive remedy provision, Code § 65.2-307(A), 3 the rights and remedies provided in the Act are exclusive of all other rights and remedies that a covered employee and his beneficiaries might otherwise possess as a result of the employee's job-related accident. Under this statute, an injured employee and his beneficiaries are precluded from maintaining a common law action against the employee's immediate employer for an injury sustained in the course of alternative argument that, even if LBP was Ubaldo's statutory employer, LBP waived its defense of immunity under the Act because LBP did not purchase workers' compensation insurance or qualify as a self-insurer. 2 The majority discusses and disposes of Rodriguez' jurisdictional argument in footnote 4 of its opinion. 3 Code § 65.2-307(A) states: The rights and remedies herein granted to an employee when his employer and he have accepted the provisions of this title respectively to pay and accept compensation on account of injury or death by accident shall exclude all other rights and remedies of such employee, his personal representative, parents, dependents or next of kin, at common law or otherwise, on account of such injury, loss of service or death. 18 employment when the employee and the employer have accepted the Act's provisions. See Hudson v. Jarrett, 269 Va. 24, 29, 606 S.E.2d 827, 829 (2005); Pfeifer v. Krauss Const. Co., 262 Va. 262, 266, 546 S.E.2d 717, 719 (2001). An exception, however, to the Act's exclusive remedy provision is set forth in Code § 65.2-309(A), which permits the employee to bring a common law action against a third-party tortfeasor, provided the tortfeasor is an other party within the meaning of the Act. Crocker v. Riverside Brick & Supply Co., 273 Va. 235, 238-39, 639 S.E.2d 214, 216 (2007); Anderson v. Dillow, 262 Va. 797, 799-800, 553 S.E.2d 526, 527 (2001). An owner such as LBP, which is not the injured employee's immediate employer, is nonetheless under the canopy of the [A]ct and entitled to the immediate employer['s] statutory immunity from common-law actions if the owner qualifies as the injured employee's statutory employer, thereby negating other party status. Evans v. Hook, 239 Va. 127, 131, 387 S.E.2d 777, 779 (1990). The test for determining whether an owner becomes a statutory employer is set forth in Code § 65.2-302(A) as follows: When any person (referred to in this section as owner) undertakes to perform or execute any work which is a part of his trade, business or occupation and contracts with any other person (referred to in this section as subcontractor) for the execution or performance by or under such 19 subcontractor of the whole or any part of the work undertaken by such owner, the owner shall be liable to pay to any worker employed in the work any compensation under this title which he would have been liable to pay if the worker had been immediately employed by him. The project owner is thus deemed to be the statutory employer of the independent contractor's employees if those employees are engaged in work that is a part of the owner's trade, business, or occupation. 4 If so, the owner is rendered liable to those employees for workers' compensation benefits. The purposes of Code § 65.2-302(A) are to afford protection to 'the employees of [independent contractors] who are not financially responsible,' Bassett Furniture Industries, Inc. v. McReynolds, 216 Va. 897, 902, 224 S.E.2d 323, 326 (1976) (quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Wallace, 172 F.2d 802, 810 (4th Cir. 1949)), and to prevent an owner from escaping liability under the Act by the simple expedient of subcontracting away work which is part of its trade, business, or occupation. Henderson v. Central Tel. Co. of Va., 233 Va. 377, 381, 355 S.E.2d 596, 598-99 (1987). These purposes are reflective of the highly remedial nature of the Act, id. at 382, 355 S.E.2d at 599; Board of Supervisors of Amherst County v. Boaz, 176 Va. 126, 134, 10 4 The employees, in turn, become the statutory employees of the owner. Crocker, 273 Va. at 238-39, 639 S.E.2d at 216. 20 S.E.2d 498, 501 (1940), which is to be construed to effect its fundamental purpose of providing workers with statutory compensation for accidental injuries resulting from the hazards of their employment. Henderson, 233 Va. at 382, 355 S.E.2d at 599; Feitig v. Chalkley, 185 Va. 96, 98, 38 S.E.2d 73, 75 (1946). Accordingly, in this case, even though Rodriguez does not seek workers' compensation benefits from LBP, our consideration of this appeal is nevertheless governed by the principles that apply in a case where coverage is sought. Henderson, 233 Va. at 382, 355 S.E.2d at 599.