Worker's Compensation Bar

People come to see me most everyday about some kind of tort issue.  Many of them are in Mississippi regarding claims dealing with negligence of their employer.  Most of the time the injuries are exclusively dealt with in the scope of worker's compensation.  It is well established that the Act is the exclusive remedy for an employee injured while acting in the scope and course of his employment.” Hurdle v. Holloway, 848 So.2d 183, 185(¶ 5) (Miss.2003) (citing Miss.Code Ann. § 71–3–9 (Rev.2000)). Our workers' compensation statute states:

“The liability of an employer to pay compensation shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee, his legal representative, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next-of-kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages at common law or otherwise from such employer on account of such injury or death, except that if an employer fails to secure payment of compensation as required by this chapter, an injured employee, or his legal representative in case death results from the injury, may elect to claim compensation under this chapter, or to maintain an action of law for damages on account of such injury or death. In such action the defendant may not plead as a defense that the injury was caused by the negligence of a fellow servant, nor that the employee assumed the risk of his employment, nor that the injury was due to the contributory negligence of the employee.” Miss. Code Ann. § 71–3–9 (Rev.2011) (emphasis added).

“The exclusivity provision of the Act is not applicable to an employee's claim if: (1) the injury is caused by the willful act of the employer or another employee acting in the course and scope of employment and in the furtherance of the employer's business; and (2) the injury [is] one that is not compensable under the Act.” Hurdle, 848 So.2d at 185(¶ 5) (citing Newell v. S. Jitney Jungle Co., 830 So.2d 621, 624(¶ 13) (Miss.2002)). Further, “[i]f the injuries were caused by an intentional tort, the exclusivity provision would not apply.” Id . at n. 4.

As such, I have had a few cases where certain intentional acts by an employer were not covered by worker's compensation allowing the case to move forward.  This is an area that must be plead carefully.