Klockner Pentaplast of America and Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company v. Beverly Hope Miller, 1348202

On January 9, 2020, Beverly Hope Miller injured her left hand operating an 8,000‑lb walk‑behind fork truck when it crushed her hand between the truck handle and a metal crate at Klockner Pentaplast’s plant.
Miller had 17 years’ experience, recent recertification with a perfect score, and knew the employer’s safety rule requiring operators to keep a clear path of travel.
The work area was tight; several metal crates had been placed improperly in the alley, and Miller testified she had earlier told her supervisor about the placement. She delivered two pallets successfully, began to back out after the second, then realized she could not make the turn, put her left hand on the crate, moved the handle toward the stop, but the truck rolled into her hand.
Employer witnesses (safety manager and supervisor) testified the truck would not stop instantly and opined Miller must have been walking backward or knowingly violated the clear‑path rule; neither identified prior infractions.
The deputy commissioner credited Miller’s live testimony, found the evidence showed at most a misjudgment (negligence), awarded benefits, and the full Commission affirmed. Miller then sought sanctions against the employer for pursuing a frivolous appeal.

Issue	Miller's Argument	Employer's Argument	Held
Whether Miller is barred from workers’ compensation because she intentionally violated a known safety rule (clear‑path)	Miller: she believed she had a clear path and acted in accordance with training; accident resulted from misjudgment (negligence)	Employer: Miller admitted the crate was in the wrong spot and proceeded to operate the truck despite lack of a clear path, showing intent to break the rule	Commission’s credibility finding that Miller believed she had a clear path is supported by evidence; negligence only — award of benefits affirmed
Whether the employer’s appeal was frivolous warranting sanctions under Va. Code § 8.01‑271.1	Miller: employer “cherry‑picked” testimony; appeal lacked factual and legal basis and was frivolous	Employer: had a reasonable factual/legal basis because isolated testimony could reasonably support a willful‑breach finding	Appeal was objectively reasonable on the record; sanctions denied

Layne v. Crist Elec. Contractor, Inc., 64 Va. App. 342 (2015) (apportioning burden and elements for employer’s willful‑breach defense)
Owens Brockway v. Easter, 20 Va. App. 268 (1995) (rule requires reasonableness, employee knowledge, benefit, and intentional performance of forbidden act)
Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Thaxton, 161 Va. 863 (1934) (willful breach proven where employee, knowing the rule, intentionally performed the forbidden act)
Olsten of Richmond v. Leftwich, 230 Va. 317 (1985) (testimony must be evaluated in its entirety and in context for credibility)
Va. Elec. & Power Co. v. Mabin, 203 Va. 490 (1962) (damaging admissions may be interpreted in light of explanations elsewhere in testimony)
Kambis v. Considine, 290 Va. 460 (2015) (sanctions statute assessed by objective reasonableness of the pleading)