A worker who lost his leg while cleaning a machine that mixes materials for asphalt can’t sue his employer because the exclusive remedy provisions in Connecticut’s workers compensation law bars such litigation, a state appeals court ruled Tuesday.

Dila Hassiem was employed at an asphalt production facility operated by O&G Industries Inc. in Stamford, Connecticut, when while performing routine maintenance on an industrial mixing machine, failed to realize that power was on, and fell in. His body was caught on an auger, which severed his leg above the knee, acccording to documents in Dila Hassiem, v. O&G Industries Inc., filed in the Appellate Court of Connecticut in Hartford.

After receiving workers compensation benefits, Mr. Hassiem sued his employer, claiming his injuries were a “direct result” of his employer’s “intentionally having created a dangerous condition, knowing that the dangerous conditions made his injuries substantially certain to occur,” documents state. 

A trial court granted O&G Industries a summary judgment, concluding that Mr. Hassiem's claim was barred by the exclusive remedy and that there were “no genuine issues of material fact” that the employer did engaged in an “intentional act knowing that there was a substantial certainty that the plaintiff would be injured,” according to documents.

On appeal, Mr. Hassiem claimed that the court improperly came to the determination of a lack of facts for negligence not barred by exclusive remedy, which is allowable under state law if the employee can establish "an employer's subjective intent to create a dangerous situation with a substantial certainty of injury to the employee.”

The appeals court disagreed, writing that state law and the state Supreme Court have “stressed the need for this stringent rule to uphold the legislative intent underlying our workers' compensation scheme,” and that Mr. Hassiem had performed these same job functions before and had “presented no evidence that he previously had safety concerns about cleaning the auger.”

“The trial court, therefore, found that the plaintiff's deposition testimony was insufficient to create an issue of fact that he was coerced to clean the auger,” as was his claim. “On appeal, the plaintiff has not pointed to any facts that cause us to disagree with the trial court's determination. The plaintiff, therefore, cannot prevail —despite his catastrophic injury — and we conclude that the court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.”