This is a terrible decision. Workers’ comp began with the idea that workers would be compensated for the medical bills and wage loss they sustained on the job without regard to fault. In return for this benefit to workers, employers would have the benefit of not being subject to damages for noneconomic loss (such as pain and suffering). The Virginia Court’s decision essentially injects fault back into the analysis by saying that the employee is at fault for eating to big a piece of food or not chewing it completely. Comparative fault has no place in the realm of workers comp.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Quesadillas are not native to Virginia.
This is a terrible decision. Workers’ comp began with the idea that workers would be compensated for the medical bills and wage loss they sustained on the job without regard to fault. In return for this benefit to workers, employers would have the benefit of not being subject to damages for noneconomic loss (such as pain and suffering). The Virginia Court’s decision essentially injects fault back into the analysis by saying that the employee is at fault for eating to big a piece of food or not chewing it completely. Comparative fault has no place in the realm of workers comp.