Challenging the Way We Think About “Exclusive Remedy”.

In this fascinating episode, explore how the Exclusive Remedy Rule works in the real and evolving world of Workers’ Compensation law. A recent case in Washington State, the Teela Bauer case, challenges the traditional exchange of employer civil protections for worker compensation in the case of workplace harm.

This is an interesting case as it involves an employee’s exposure to chemicals which may have led to the employee’s child’s birth defects. So, was there a workplace injury? Or is the company liable for something that went beyond the visible, definable workplace injury? Can the worker sue for something that may have started in the workplace but didn’t occur there? All good questions.

The unborn child didn’t work for the employer. The parent wasn’t physically injured in the traditional sense at the workplace. But the plaintiff asserts the chemicals used on the job led to biological damage that led to the birth defects of the conceived child. Now the question is whether the traditional Exclusive Remedy doctrine precludes the parents from bringing a separate lawsuit against the employer. It gets complicated in a hurry. The worker wasn’t visibly injured, but the non-employee child has suffered some harm. 

Workers’ Compensation law is an ever-evolving thing. Cases occasionally challenge what we thought we knew. Will the Teela Bauer case change the Exclusive Remedy Rule? Will legislation follow? It’s fascinating.

If you have thoughts on Workers’ Comp law or an idea for a topic or guest you’d like to hear, contact us at [email protected] or [email protected]. 

Referenced Links:

Teela Bauer ruling, Justia Law

“Boeing Must Face Negligence Claims Over Birth Defects of Employee’s Child,” Courthouse News Service

“Workers’ Compensation: No Longer The Exclusive Remedy,” Pierce, Pierce & Napolitano

Foley v. Polaroid Corp, Justia Law

Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., “the Woburn case,” Wikipedia