Tolling the statute of limitations for change-in-condition applications under Virginia Act

In Ford Motor Company v. Gordon, 281 Va. 543, 708 S.E. 2d 846 (2011), the Court considered the proper interpretation of Va. Code sec. 65.2-708(A) and 65.2-708(C), which govern the tolling of the statute of limitations for filing a change-in-condition application for workers’ compensation benefits. The Court held that… Read More
Read More

Virginia Workers Compensation:  Court affirms successful res judicata defense

In Brock v. Voith Siemen Hydro Power Generation et al., No. 0428-11-3 (Va. App. Nov. 1, 2011), the Court affirmed a decision by the Virginia Workers Compensation Commission that the claimant was barred by res judicata from litigating injuries he alleged in his initial claim but did not raise at his evidentiary hearing. As a… Read More
Read More

Presumption that death on the job was work-related held not to apply in Virginia comp appeal

In Puller v. Fairfax County School Board, No. 0886-11-4 (Va. App. 2011), the Court affirmed the Commission’s denial of workers’ compensation benefits to a widow whose husband died of a heart attack while performing his job as a mail delivery truck driver. The decedent, who worked for the School Board, was found… Read More
Read More

Virginia Workers Compensation award reversed because employer had insufficient number of employees

In Ragland v. Muguruza, No. 0524-11-4 (Va. App. 2011), the Court reversed the Virginia Workers Compensation Commission’s award of benefits, on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence that Ragland, the employer, had three or more employees “regularly in service” at the time of the accident, and thu… Read More
Read More

D.C. Workers Compensation:  Court of Appeals rejects objective standard for mental disability claims

In Muhammad v. District of Columbia Depart. Of Emp. Serv., No. 10-AA-1049 (D.C. Jan. 5, 2012), the claimant had suffered a back injury on the job and was on temporary total disability. After three years, the employer enrolled the claimant in vocational rehabilitation, in an effort to find him sedentary work. After a year of… Read More
Read More

Negligence per se based on traffic regulations: A D.C. refresher

Two recent opinions from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia provide a refresher on D.C. law concerning negligence per se based on the violation of D.C. traffic regulations. In Mahnke v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, No. 10-0021 (D.D.C. Oct. 20, 2011), the plaintiff was a pedestrian who ma… Read More
Read More

Premises Liability: Maryland Court of Appeals clarifies assumption of risk defense in black ice case

In George Poole v. Coakley Williams Construction, Inc., et al., No. 130 Sept. Term 2010 (Oct. 27, 2011), and Mary Thomas v. Panco Management of Maryland, LLC, No. 133 Sept. Term 2010 (Oct. 31, 2011) the Court of Appeals overruled the Court of Special Appeals decision in Mary Thomas v. Panco Management of Maryland, LLC, et a… Read More
Read More
Categories: Defenses, Maryland

Independent contractor rule in D.C.: WMATA not liable for tuberculosis exposure

In a recent case before the District Court for the District of Columbia, the plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to invoke two exceptions to the “independent contractor rule.” Andrews v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119916 (D.D.C. 2011). That rule provides that a principal is generally n… Read More
Read More

Federal jurisdiction and venue: New Legislation Takes Effect

On December 7, 2011, the President signed into law the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act. 112 P.L. 63. The Act is applicable to all actions filed on or after January 6, 2012. This new law makes small but important changes to the procedure for removal to federal court and clarifies the scope of diversit… Read More
Read More

Insurer’s Late Notice Defense in Virginia: Dabney v. Augusta Mutual Ins. Co.

In Dabney v. Augusta Mutual Insurance Co., 282 Va. 78, 710 S.E.2d 726 (2011), the Virginia Supreme Court held that the question whether the insured gave the insurer notice of the claim “as soon as is practicable” was a question for the jury, notwithstanding the insured’s 254-day delay in providing notice.… Read More
Read More
Categories: Defenses, Insurance, Virginia