Unclogging Machine Amounts to Repair, Leaving Workers’ Comp as Exclusive Remedy

Birmingham, AL (WorkersCompensation.com) -- What is the difference between making a repair on a machine and why is it important?

Accoridng to Alabama's top court in Buford v. Bledsoe, No. CV-19-900125 (Ala. 12/02/22), it meant the difference between a worker being limited by the state's exclusive remedy provision and being able to sue for injuries he experienced in an on-the-job injury.

A maintenance technician for a manufacturing facility had as one of his duties servicing the recycling system that transformed metal chips and shavings created during manufacturing back into usable material. 

The machine used to perform the recycling function had an auger and vacuum that pulled scrap metal through to where it was melted down and purified. According to the technician, the machine regularly stopped working two to three times per week.  

While at work, the technician was notified by radio that the machine needed servicing. When he went to the machine, he recognized that it was clogged. While completing the repair, somehow the technician managed to get his sleeve caught in the auger, which pulled his arm into the machine, where it was twisted and cut. Following the accident, the technician underwent multiple surgeries for his hand and forearm injuries. 

The technician filed a claim for workers’ compensation, and the claim was ultimately settled. Nonetheless, the technician sued seven of his coworkers, claiming that his injuries were caused by their “willful conduct” in “removing and/or altering the safety guards and devices” on the machine and requiring him to perform his job duties without the safety equipment. 

Following a hearing, the technician’s claim was allowed to go forward because the trial court found that there were material questions of fact about whether the technician’s actions were maintenance or repair or simply “unclogging/unjamming.” 

The company appealed. 

Alabama law’s exclusive remedies provision expressly immunizes employees from suits by their coworkers stemming from on-the-job accidents unless there is some evidence of the defendant employee’s willful conduct. 

The law sets forth that willful conduct includes the “willful and intentional removal from a machine of a safety guard or safety device … with knowledge that injury or death would likely or probably result from the removal.” 

The Alabama Supreme Court in this case explained that the question of what it means for a safety device to be removed for the purpose of repair was a question of statutory interpretation. Looking at the technician’s case, the court concluded that the technician’s unclogging constituted a “repair” for legal purposes, and thus fell within the exclusivity provision that limited the technician’s remedies to workers’ compensation benefits. 

Looking to Black’s Law Dictionary, the court explained that “repair” means “to mend, remedy, restore, renovate. To restore to a sound or good state after decay, injury, dilapidation, or partial destruction.”  

According to the court, this definition, along with that found in Merriam Webster, supported the position that the technician was engaged in repair work and not just impromptu unclogging. 

“In light of the plain meaning of the term ‘repair’ ... we think it clear that [the technician’s] unclogging of the [machine] did in fact constitute a repair,” the court wrote. 

Because there was no evidence that that a coworker engaged in willful conduct with respect to the technician’s injury, the court reversed the trial court’s decision.

For compliance information from Alabama and the rest of the U.S., visit WorkCompResearch