Abdelhadi Mouhssine v. Crystal City Laundry and New Hampshire Insurance Company
62 Va. App. 65
| Va. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- claimant Mouhssine injured back April 27, 2009 while loading towels; back brace rule was part of employer policy and standup meetings.
- employer Crystal City Laundry filed a Notice of Willful Misconduct alleging willful breach of the back brace rule before the accident.
- evidence showed the back brace rule existed, was communicated at standup meetings, and claimant signed the written policy; verbal directives to wear a back brace were given; no written warnings were issued.
- deputy commissioner found willful breach and total disability from May 22, 2009 through March 3, 2011; full commission affirmed the willful breach finding.
- on appeal, court affirmed the commission, concluding the back brace rule was enforced bona fide and the duration issue was not properly before appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the back brace rule was enforced bona fide to sustain the willful breach defense | Mouhssine argues enforcement was lacking | Employer shows corrective actions and standup-meeting enforcement | Yes; bona fide enforcement shown; defense upheld |
| Whether the duration of total disability is properly before the court | claimant remains totally disabled | not reviewable due to lack of reconsideration | Not reviewable under Rule 5A:18 |
| Whether Jenkins framework properly supports strict enforcement analysis | enforcement was not strict; no deterrence | enforcement showed conscientious effort to require compliance | Court applied Jenkins; found bona fide enforcement present |
Key Cases Cited
- Peanut City Iron & Metal Co., Inc. v. Jenkins, 207 Va. 399, 150 S.E.2d 120 (Va. 1966) (enforcement analysis requires bona fide enforcement and notice of rule; penalties not sole focus)
- Jenkins, 207 Va. 399, 150 S.E.2d 120 (Va. 1966) (rule strict enforcement requires genuine employer effort to enforce at all times)
- Kremposky, 227 Va. 265, 315 S.E.2d 231 (Va. 1984) (pattern of failing to discipline defeats defense when employer acquiesces)
- Hagins, 32 Va. App. 386, 528 S.E.2d 162 (Va. Ct. App. 2000) (presence of supervisory corrective enforcement supports strict enforcement)