Helf v. Chevron; a Workers' Comp and Personal Injury Game Changer
| Publication year | 2012 |
| Pages | 28 |
Vol. 25, No. 1. 28. Helf v. Chevron; A Workers' Comp and Personal Injury Game Changer
Volume 25 No. 1
Jan/Feb 2012
The Exclusive Remedy Provision ("Provision") of the Utah Workers' Compensation Act ("WCA") is not so exclusive. The Utah Supreme Court previously recognized the validity of a claim for an intentional tort notwithstanding the Provision. See Helf v. Chevron, 2009 UT 11, ¶ 18, 203 P3d 962 (citing Bryan v. Utah Int'l, 533 P.2d 892, 894 (Utah 1975)). Despite the exception discussed in Bryan, prior to Helf workplace injuries short of intentional torts seemed to remain the sole province of the WCA claims process. The longstanding litmus test for a Workers' Compensation case required: (1) an employee, (2) injured, (3) in the "course of," or because of, his or her employment. See Utah Code Ann. § 34A-2-105(1) (2011); see also Bryan 533 P.2d at 893. But then the court decided Helf.
In Helf, the court acknowledged that Utah's Workers' Compensation Act provides an exclusive remedy for employees seeking to recover for injuries incurred on the job due to the negligence of an employer or co-employee. See Helf, 2009 UT 11, ¶ 16. However, the court recognized a new exception to this general rule, as discussed below. The Helf case presents new practical issues for all attorneys involved in personal injury litigation. For plaintiffs' attorneys: a new avenue for recovery. For the defense bar: a potential basis for corporate liability to be mindful of. And for in-house counsel: a point of discussion to be raised with employers and commercial insurance providers.
The Helf ruling changes Workers' Compensation and personal injury practices, and practitioners should apprise themselves of the scope and impact of the ruling.
THE GENERAL PROHIBITION ON SUITS AGAINST EMPLOYERS BY THEIR EMPLOYEES
Under the Provision, absent other malfeasance by an employer -such as the employer's failure to carry Workers' Compensation Insurance, see Utah Code Ann. § 34A-2-207 - employers generally enjoy insulation from suit by employees injured on the job. See id. § 34A-2-105(1) (2008).
THE PURPOSE OF THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY PROVISION
The Provision offers a quid pro quo. See Helf, 2009 UT 11, ¶ 16 (citing Shattuck-Owen v. Snowbird Corp., 2000 UT 94, ¶ 19, 16 P.3d 555). It affords employees a "simple, adequate, and speedy remedy" for injuries sustained on the job, but bars negligence lawsuits against the employer or another employee. Id.¶ 16 (citing Park Utah Consol. Mines Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 84 Utah 481, 36 P.2d 979, 981 (1934)).
THE UNFORTUNATE IMPACT OF THE PROVISION
For the most part, the Provision has served its purpose - workers have received care for injuries suffered on the job. But sometimes the Provision causes employers to operate their businesses with a disregard for employee safety. I have seen many cases where an employee was seriously injured (nearly killed) on the job site because of the employer's abject indifference. Though the employer did not act intentionally, the employer's conduct was more egregious than...
To continue reading
Request your trial