 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nickels v. Napolilli8/17/2001
he contract between Nickels and the Napolillis by virtue of the workers' compensation statute, the remedies offered by the workers' compensation statute are exclusive.
The remedy for a successful breach of contract action puts the non-breaching party in the position that it would have been in had the breach not occurred. "The purpose of awarding damages for a breach of contract is to put the injured party in as good a position as that party would have been had the contract been fully performed." Thus, the contract remedy for a breach of the obligation to provide workers' compensation insurance would place the worker in the same position as if the employer had provided the required insurance or benefits. The worker would be entitled to compensation for lost wages and medical expenses, as well as vocational rehabilitation benefits.
An Alaska Workers' Compensation Board proceeding results in determination of compensation owed to the employee according to the Act. As this is the amount the employee would have received if workers' compensation insurance or benefits had been provided by the employer, it would also represent the complete contract remedy for an employer's failure to provide workers' compensation insurance or benefits. Thus, an administrative action achieves the same result as would a breach of contract action. The administrative remedy, however, is only one of the two options available under AS 23.30.055: an employee may also sue the employer for damages resulting from the underlying injury sustained.
Nickels's further claim that the Napolillis breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing fails for the same reasons as her contract claim. Nickels proposed a jury instruction setting out this claim:
Under state law, Ruth Nickels had the right to obtain reasonable and necessary medical treatment at her employer's expense for any on-the-job injuries, the right to select a treating doctor without interference from her employer, and the right to receive compensation for any time she was unable to work due to her injuries.
Intentionally violating state law, or intentionally attempting to deprive an employee of rights guaranteed by state law would be a violation of the obligation of good faith and fair dealing.
This cause of action presents essentially the same uncontested allegation underlying the breach of contract claims: the Napolillis failed to provide workers' compensation benefits or insurance. Because the obligation to provide benefits is imposed by the workers' compensation statute, it can be remedied only in a manner prescribed by that statute. That the Napolillis arguably intentionally violated state law or tried to deprive Nickels of the benefits to which she was entitled does not change this outcome.
In summary, the trial court did not err in dismissing Nickels's claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Although Nickels filed a suit alleging tort causes of action, she abandoned all tort claims before trial. She therefore abandoned the opportunity to take advantage of the statutory presumption of negligence and abrogation of many defenses to negligence. While Nickels's complaint also included contract-based causes of action, these claims cannot sustain a separate lawsuit against Nickels's employer. As the trial court concluded, Nickels's only remaining legal option is to have her claims heard before the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board. The trial court granted Nickels a period of ninety days to file her claim before the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board; that period has been tolled pending resolution of this appeal.
C.
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.
|
|