Caps & Immunities An interesting twist on the “deliberate injury” exception


to exclusivity was presented in Young v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. 15


In Young, the Court of Appeals found that a


workers’ compensation insurer, who under prior holdings would share the employer’s immunity pursuant to the “exclusive remedy” doctrine,16


could nevertheless be sued for


intentional infliction of emotional distress, even though the conduct arose from its administration of an injured employee’s workers compensation claim. In Young, the Claimant was assaulted at work and suffered physical and emotional trauma as a result. She pursued her remedies for workers’ compensation under the Act and filed a lawsuit against the workers’ compensation insurer based upon theories of both negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Te complaint alleged that the insurer engaged in a persistent course of outrageous conduct designed to cause serious psychological trauma.17


Te insurer was alleged to have


failed to pay the injured worker’s medical bills, even though previously ordered to do so, refused to authorize psychiatric treatment despite an abundance of evidence to support the need for such treatment, and insisted on an outside


psychological evaluation, even though the injured worker’s 15 303 Md. 182, 492 A.2d 1270 (1985). 16 Flood v. Merchants Mutual Ins. Co., 230 Md. 373, 187 A.2d 320 (1963). 17 Young, 303 Md. at 186, 492 A.2d at 1272.


treating physician warned that it could lead to suicide.18 In


addition, the insurance adjuster was alleged to have made several comments designed to torment the injured worker to the effect that she “[was] crazy and, if it were up to me, you would not get a penny.”19 Te Maryland Court of Appeals, in accord with its prior


holding, found that a workers’ compensation insurer stands in the position of an employer under the Act and thereby enjoys the same immunity for its negligence as exists for the employer under the exclusivity provision.20


However, based


on the allegations as to the insurer’s intentional conduct, the Court held that a case could be made that the insurer deliberately intended to harm the injured worker by causing her to either give up her claim or commit suicide, and, therefore, if proven, the insurer would lose the immunity afforded by the exclusivity provision.21


Te Court held that


under the particular facts pleaded in this case, the insurer, by virtue of the deliberate conduct alleged, would not be entitled to the immunity afforded by the exclusive remedy provision of the Act.22


Of considerable interest to the practitioner


18 Id. at 188-189, 492 A.2d at 1272-1274. 19 Id. 20 Id. at 193-194, 492 A.2d at 1276-1277. 21 Id. at 303 Md. at 197-199, 492 A.2d at 1277-1279. 22 See Rohan v. Networks Presentation, LLC, 175 F. Supp. 2d 806, 12 A.D. Cases 1773 (D. Md. 2001) (An employer’s insistence that an employee disclose her mental disabilities to her co-workers in a public setting was considered “outrageous” conduct that permitted an inference of deliberate intent


THE MOST DIRECT WAY TO GET


WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PRESCRIPTIONS TO THE INJURED WORKER


• IWP is a national patient advocate pharmacy that provides medications to the injured worker.


• We ensure your client’s medications are shipped right to their door regardless of their claim’s status.


8 8 8-32 1-7945


• With IWP there’s no out-of-pocket expense for the patient, physician or attorney.


• IWP will allow you to spend less time and energy on paperwork and more time on your case.


www.IWPharmacy.com Trial Reporter / Spring 2011 43 VERSION:1 DATE: 11/3/10 JOB: 10-IWP-147


BY SIGNING YOUR INITIALS BELOW, YOU ARE STATING THAT YOU HAVE READ AND APPROVED THIS WORK.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68