 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nickels v. Napolilli8/17/2001
s abandoned all of her tort claims. Instead, she relied solely on contract theories for her claims against the Napolillis, alleging that the Napolillis breached their employment contract when they failed to obtain workers' compensation insurance and failed to pay for medical care and lost wages after her injuries. Nickels's claim presumes that the lack of workers' compensation insurance, in itself, is an "injury" of the sort that can be compensated by a lawsuit. We disagree.
The statute defines "injury" as "accidental injury or death arising out of and in the course of employment, and an occupational disease or infection which arises naturally out of the employment or which naturally or unavoidably results from an accidental injury." When a worker chooses the remedy of suing an employer who has failed to provide workers' compensation benefits, the purpose is to rectify the same harm that the workers' compensation statute as a whole remedies -- injury or death resulting from an on-the-job accident. A tort action is the common law cause of action that can address this harm.
Moreover, other provisions of the Act support the interpretation that a common law action under AS 23.30.055 is limited to tort claims for the underlying injury . Alaska Statute 23.30.080 clarifies that if an employer fails to buy insurance it "may not escape liability for personal injury or death sustained by an employee when the injury sustained arises out of and in the usual course of employment because [of negligence of co-employees, assumption of risk, or contributory or comparative negligence]." Alaska Statute 23.30.020 also explicitly refers to "personal injuries" as the injuries for which the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act provides a remedy. This section states that "every contract of hire shall be construed as an agreement on the part of the employer to pay and on the part of the employee to accept compensation in the manner provided in this chapter for all personal injuries sustained." Thus, when an employer breaches its duty to provide workers' compensation benefits, the workers' compensation law only authorizes the employee to recover for personal injuries through a tort action.
And when the employee chooses to file a lawsuit, as opposed to pursuing an administrative action, that lawsuit provides a remedy for the same "accidental injury . . . arising out of and in the course of employment" as would be compensated through an administrative action. The lawsuit then cannot, as Nickels claims, compensate for the "injury" of the breached obligation to provide insurance or comparable benefits. Rather, the cause of action arises from the underlying accident or personal injury and thus requires a tort claim.
3. Nickels's breach of contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing claims are neither authorized nor necessary under the workers' compensation statute.
The remedies established by the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act are the only available remedies for an employer's failure to provide workers' compensation benefits. Moreover, there would be no contractual breach if there were no statutory requirement to provide workers' compensation. Professor Larson states that "the exclusiveness principle results in barring actions for covered injuries even though the plaintiff casts his actions in the form of a breach of some kind of contract." The employer's failure to provide workers' compensation insurance does not create a separate contract cause of action, even though the obligation to provide workers' compensation insurance is incorporated into every employment contract. Because the Napolillis' obligation to provide workers' compensation insurance is only incorporated into t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Alaska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|