Could Burned Coal Plant Worker who Received WC Benefits also Sue Company in Tort?

What Do You Think?

There is an exception to the exclusivity provision of Louisiana’s workers’ compensation statute. Under that exception, claimants are not limited to workers’ compensation benefits, but can also sue in tort, if they show that the employer acted intentionally.

In one recent case, the claimant, Robert Remedies, worked in the control room of a plant that processes coal. The company utilized dust collectors as part of the process. One of the collectors had been exhibiting high levels of carbon monoxide.

An instrumentation technician inspected the collector and removed the carbon monoxide monitor. He told the person in charge of the control room that the collector was showing a high level of carbon monoxide. The person in charge of the control room failed to tell the claimant’s supervisor, who sent the employee to open the collector and clean it. When he did so, fire spewed out, injuring him.

The claimant received workers’ compensation benefits for his injuries and then sought to sue the company in tort. He claimed the company essentially acted intentionally because it knew the fire would occur.

In Louisiana, an intentional act requires either of the following:

1. The actor consciously desires the physical result of his act, whatever the likelihood of that result happening from his conduct; or
2. The actor knows that the result is substantially certain to follow from his conduct, whatever his desire may be as to that result.

Was Remedies entitled to the additional remedy?

A. Yes. Multiple people at the company knew about the problem and failed to alert the supervisor.

B. No. His supervisor didn’t know that the dust collector lacked a carbon monoxide monitor when he sent him to open it.

If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Remedies v. Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc., No. 23-454 (W.D. La. 01/27/25), which held that the claimant failed to show that the employer acted intentionally.

The claimant had to show that his supervisor who sent him to open the collector did so knowing the fire was substantially certain to follow. However, there was no evidence that the supervisor knew the machine lacked a carbon monoxide monitor. 

The supervisor even checked the control room board before sending the claimant to clean the dust collector. The board displayed a zero reading, which he believed was accurate.

“Therefore, when [the supervisor] sent Remedies to the dust collector, he did not know that the dust collector presented a danger,” the court wrote.

Therefore, the company did not have the intent necessary for the claimant’s tort claim to fall under an exception to the workers' compensation act's exclusivity provision. In short, the claimant's only legal remedy was workers’ compensation benefits.

Share This Article: