720 S.E.2d 66
Va.2012Background
- Chester operates law office plus farm-related businesses; Redifer injured Oct 9, 2006 as a wool press operator for Chester's farm operations.
- Chester carried workers’ compensation insurance for his law office but not for farm ventures (Cestari and CSLC).
- Redifer filed a workers’ compensation claim against Chester, Cestari, and CSLC on Nov 8, 2006; he also sued in circuit court for negligence.
- Deputy WC Commissioner found Cestari was employer and uninsured, and that Redifer’s injuries were compensable; Full Commission and Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Circuit court dismissed the civil action, holding that Redifer’s recovery under the Act barred further action at law; Redifer appeals for reinstatement of the civil suit.
- Statutory framework: Code § 65.2-800 requires insurance; Code § 65.2-805 permits civil action when employer is uninsured; Code § 65.2-307(A) bars other remedies when Act applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to insure bars a civil action for damages | Redifer: uninsured status allows full damages at law despite an award | Cestari: Code § 65.2-805 precludes additional legal action once a workers’ comp claim yields an award | No; uninsured status alone does not permit separate full damages when an award is collectible or collected. |
| Whether recovery under the Act precludes a later civil action when an award is final | Redifer sought continued relief beyond the award. | Cestari argues election of remedies bars further action. | Employee may recover only one full recovery; if final collectible award exists, no subsequent at-law action. |
Key Cases Cited
- Virginia Used Auto Parts, Inc. v. Robertson, 212 Va. 100, 181 S.E.2d 612 (Va. 1971) (uninsured employer liability and remedy election considerations under the Act)
- Delp v. Berry, 213 Va. 786, 195 S.E.2d 877 (Va. 1973) (one full recovery rule under the Act when uninsured employer; civil action permissible if no recovery yet)
- Syed v. ZH Techs., Inc., 280 Va. 58, 694 S.E.2d 625 (Va. 2010) (statutory interpretation of Code § 65.2-805 and standard de novo review)