Top
Stories
Featured Article Data Bank Focus: Getting Them to Stay February 8, 2013
Featured Article Data Bank Focus: See Where Workers Are Saying 'See Ya' February 8, 2013
Featured Article Data Bank Focus: A Shrinking Pool of Job Candidates February 8, 2013
Featured Article Honoring Diversity the Hawaiian Way February 8, 2013
Featured Article Honoring Diversity the McDonald's Way February 8, 2013
Featured Article Defending Diversity February 8, 2013
Featured Article Retirement Showdown February 7, 2013
Featured Article Visa Program Sparks Debate—Again February 7, 2013
Featured Article Homeward Bound February 7, 2013
Blog: The Practical Employer Workplace Social Media Policies Must Account for Generational Issues February 7, 2013
Blog: Work in Progress Kiss and Tell February 6, 2013
Latest News

Workers Comp Claimant Cannot Sue Third Party and Administrator

State appellate court cites the workers’ compensation exclusive remedy provision in upholding a lower court’s dismissal of an injured correctional officer’s lawsuit.

  • Published: June 29, 2010
  • Updated: September 15, 2011
  • Comments (0)
Related Topics:

The workers’ compensation exclusive remedy doctrine bars an injured correctional officer from suing an “independent third party” and the party’s third-party administrator, a Connecticut appellate court has ruled.

The ruling in Daniel D’Amico v. ACE Financial Solutions Inc. et al., to be published Tuesday, June 29, stems from injuries D’Amico suffered while restraining an inmate in a youth correctional facility in 1992, court records state.

He suffered neck, back, shoulder, arm and hand injuries and later was diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, fibromyalgia, hypertension and other problems.

The state provided D’Amico benefits for many of the claimed injuries, but in 2001 it transferred its responsibility for claims to ACE, which the Connecticut Appellate Court opinion described as a “corporation involved in the business of financial derivatives.”

ACE engaged Berkley Administrators of Connecticut Inc. to administer state claims including the one filed by D’Amico, court records state. Then in 2003, Berkley said it no longer would pay for D’Amico’s psychiatric medication and treatment “because it was considered palliative and no longer necessary.”

In 2005, D’Amico sued ACE and Berkley, alleging breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. A trial court in 2008 granted the defendants summary judgment based on the workers’ comp exclusive remedy doctrine.

The correctional officer appealed, arguing that ACE is an “independent third party” and not an insurer, so the exclusive remedy doctrine does not apply. But the state appellate court disagreed.

It upheld the lower court’s dismissal of the suit and said the exclusive remedy provision bars D’Amico’s action, even if ACE is an independent third party as D’Amico asserted. 

Filed by Roberto Ceniceros of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.

 

Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Leave A Comment

Guidelines: Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. We will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content you post.

Stay Connected

Join our community for unlimited access to the latest tips, news and information in the HR world.

Follow Workforce on Twitter
HR Jobs
View All Job Listings

Search