Summary
This Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board decision reviews an interlocutory appeal where the employer challenged a trial court’s order granting the employee’s request for medical benefits following a workplace welding accident. The employer asserted affirmative defenses of willful misconduct and failure to wear personal protective equipment, arguing the injury resulted from intentional horseplay rather than a compensable accident. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court’s ruling, finding insufficient evidence to support the employer’s defenses at this stage and concluding the employee was likely to prevail at trial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the employer presented sufficient evidence at the expedited-hearing stage to establish that Markin likely would not prevail because he willfully failed to use required personal protective equipment.
- Whether the employer presented sufficient evidence at the expedited-hearing stage to establish that Markin's injury resulted from willful misconduct or horseplay.
- Whether the trial court properly assessed lay opinion testimony, investigative experiments, eyewitness inconsistencies, and circumstantial evidence in determining that Markin was likely to prevail at trial.
Holdings
- The employer did not present sufficient evidence at the expedited-hearing stage to show that its safety-device defense was likely to defeat Markin's claim. Although Markin was not wearing eye protection and understood the PPE requirement, the employer failed to establish bona fide enforcement of the rule and did not show a sufficient basis for finding a willful violation under the circumstances.
- The employer did not present sufficient evidence to establish that Markin was injured while engaging in willful misconduct or horseplay. The employer's theory was based on supposition, conjecture, circumstantial evidence, and lay opinions rather than sufficient proof that Markin intentionally caused the bottle explosion.
- The evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's interlocutory determination that Markin was likely to prevail at trial.
Key quotations
“To prevail on these affirmative defenses, the employer has the burden to prove the following: (1) the employee’s actual, as opposed to constructive, notice of the rule; (2) the employee’s understanding of the danger involved in violating the rule; (3) the employer’s bona fide enforcement of the rule; and (4) the employee’s lack of a valid excuse for violating the rule.” (at 8)
“Employer’s theory, therefore, is heavily dependent on the scientific validity of its accident reconstruction experiments, which were not conducted by an accident reconstruction expert.” (at 11)
Factual background
William Markin, a commercial gas welder, suffered severe injuries including loss of his right eye when an explosion occurred as a coworker began welding near a truck. Markin was not wearing eye protection because he testified that he did not know welding had begun, and the crew had not conducted a safety briefing. The employer concluded that the explosion resulted from intentional horseplay involving an acetylene-filled beverage bottle, but the eyewitnesses denied intentionally causing an explosion, and the employer's investigation did not establish that theory through expert testimony or reliable testing.
Procedural history
Markin suffered a serious right-eye injury in a welding-related explosion while working for Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division. The employer denied the claim and asserted willful misconduct and willful failure to use a safety device. After an expedited hearing, the Court of Workers' Compensation Claims found that the employer had not presented sufficient evidence to establish either affirmative defense and determined that Markin was likely to prevail at trial. The employer appealed, and the Appeals Board affirmed and remanded.
Remand instructions
The case is remanded for further proceedings in the Court of Workers' Compensation Claims consistent with the affirmed interlocutory order.