Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Lack of seatbelt bars trucker’s workers comp accident claim

Reprints
Lack of seatbelt bars trucker’s workers comp accident claim

A truck driver involved in an accident in 2018 while delivering ice is not eligible for workers compensation because he was not wearing a seatbelt, an appeals court in Virginia ruled Tuesday.

Parker Mizelle was first awarded comp, but his employer Holiday Ice Inc. argued that he was not eligible because he wasn’t wearing his seatbelt. He then appealed a decision of the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission that his conduct — not wearing a seatbelt — was considered “willful” under state case law, according to documents in Parker Mizelle v. Holiday Ice, Inc. and Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Co., filed in the Court of Appeals of Virginia in Richmond.

Mr. Mizelle argued the commission erred in finding that he was barred from an award of benefits because he willfully failed to put on a seat belt and that the commission also erred in finding that his injuries were proximately caused by his failure to wear a seat belt, according to documents.

The appeals court affirmed, citing case law that states an injured worker is not eligible for benefits if he or she meets the “willful misconduct” provision in state comp law. The provision states that an employer can prevail when asserting a defense of willful misconduct if the employer proves that the safety rule, or other duty, was reasonable, was known to the employee, was for the employee’s benefit, and that the employee "intentionally undertook the forbidden act.”

The appeals court further wrote that the state “Supreme Court has explained that willful in this context means `with deliberate intent’” and elaborated that state law “explained that if an employee knows that an action is forbidden, and yet intentionally does the forbidden thing, he has willfully failed to obey.”