A young man whose arm was ripped from his body in a workplace accident is not entitled to additional benefits, despite being exposed to hazards, because he was employed by a temporary employment agency.

In Maysey v. Express Services Inc., a three-judge panel of the Kentucky Court of Appeals on Friday “reluctantly” affirmed a Kentucky Workers Compensation Board decision denying additional benefits to the worker, noting that the current state law governing temporary workers allows safety violations to “go unpunished.”

Shortly after graduating from high school, Nathaniel Maysey began working for temporary help service Express Services Inc., which placed him at Magna-Tech Manufacturing LLC in Glasgow, Kentucky. On his sixth day of work, his left arm was amputated above the elbow by a centrifuge machine.

The day of the accident was Mr. Maysey’s first day working on Line 46 after receiving minimal training, according to the complaint, and his job required him to place a bucket of parts into a centrifuge, and after a rotation, attach a hoist hook to the basket and lift it out of the machine. He was attaching a hook when the machine started again; the hook wrapped around his arm and twisted until it tore his arm from his body. He underwent nine surgeries to reattach his arm but continues to undergo therapy, has limited use of his arm and is unable to grip or pick up objects with his left hand.

Inspectors from the U.S. Occupational Health and Safety Administration found evidence of multiple hazards on Line 46, including a lack of adequate machine guarding, intentional disabling of the centrifuge’s safety protocols, problems with indicator lights, a lack of an accessible emergency stop and insufficient training of Mr. Maysey. Express Services management testified that the company inspects each facility and the machinery of the companies where it places temporary employees.

Mr. Maysey filed for workers compensation benefits against Express Services and reached a partial settlement, with the unsettled question over whether he was entitled to an enhancement of benefits on the basis that Express Services — by placing him with an employer that was cited by OSHA for safety violations — failed to make a good faith effort to furnish a workplace “free from recognized hazards.”

Mr. Maysey argued that Express Services failed this duty because it did not inspect Line 46 prior to his accident, failed to identify the need for operation guarding on the centrifuge, and failed to review the safety audit and risk assessments for the line.

An administrative law judge held that Express Services did not intentionally violate the general duty statute and that as a result, he was not entitled to a 30% enhancement benefit for a safety violation because the temporary agency was Mr. Maysey’s sole employer at the time of his accident. The Kentucky Workers Compensation Board affirmed the decision.

Mr. Maysey appealed, but the appellate court “reluctantly” affirmed the board’s decision.

The purpose of Kentucky’s penalty statute is to “penalize those employers who intentionally fail to comply” with safety regulations, but under Kentucky law, “a host employer escapes liability for any penalty no matter how egregious the safety violation and, generally, the temporary service agency escapes liability for the penalty,” said the appellate court in its opinion. “However, this court urges the legislature to specifically address the issue presented in this and similar cases by making the host employer statutorily liable for any safety violations that injure temporary workers provided by a temporary help service.”