Maynard, Justice, dissenting:
Once
again, the majority is chipping away at the immunity provided to employers by
the Workers' Compensation Act. Ignoring the plain language of the exclusivity
provisions of W.Va. Code §§ 23-2-6 and 23-2-6a, the majority has now
determined that an employee can pursue both a worker's compensation claim and
a human rights claim for the same workplace injury. Because I believe that the
statutory provisions of both the Workers' Compensation Act and the West Virginia
Human Rights Act clearly establish that the sole recourse for the appellant to
recover for her workplace injuries is the workers' compensation system, I dissent
to the majority's decision in this case.
This
Court has long held that, “Where the language of a statute is clear and
without ambiguity the plain meaning is to be accepted without resorting to the
rules of interpretation.” Syllabus Point 2, State v. Elder, 152 W.Va.
571, 165 S.E.2d 108 (1968). W.Va. Code § 23-4-6 plainly states that,
Any employer subject to this chapter who subscribes and pays into the workers' compensation fund the premiums provided by this chapter or who elects to make direct payments of compensation as provided in this section is not liable to respond in damages at common law or by statute for the injury or death of any employee, however occurring, after so subscribing or electing, and during any period in which the employer is not in default in the payment of the premiums or direct payments and has complied fully with all other provisions of this chapter.
(Emphasis added). In addition, W.Va. Code § 23-4-6a provides,
The
immunity from liability set out in the preceding section shall extend to every
officer, manager, agent, representative or employee of such employer when he
is acting in furtherance of the employer's business and does not inflict an injury
with deliberate intention.
The language of these statutes clearly bars the appellant's cause of action
under the Human Rights Act for her workplace injury.
Furthermore,
the equally clear and unambiguous language of the West Virginia Human Rights
Act does not indicate any intent by the Legislature to preempt, repeal, or supercede
the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act. This Court always
presumes that the Legislature is aware of existing law and intends its legislative
enactments to harmonize therewith. Syllabus Point 5, State v. Synder,
64 W.Va. 659, 63 S.E. 385 (1908). Since the Human Rights Act was enacted after
the Workers' Compensation Act, it must be presumed that absent any language to
the contrary, the Legislature did not intend to preempt the exclusivity provisions
of the Workers' Compensation Act.
Instead
of following the clear language of our Workers' Compensation Act and Human Rights
Act as set forth above, the majority chose to look to other jurisdictions for
guidance. The majority's reliance on what other courts have done in these types
of cases was misplaced. Our laws applicable to this issue are unique to this
State, and there is simply no basis for comparison with the statutes of other
states.
The decision
by the majority in this case paves the way for human rights claims to be filed
in every instance where an employee suffers an aggravation and/or progression
of his or her prior workplace injury. These employees will always allege that
their injuries were made worse by their employer's failure to accommodate their
disability that resulted from their previous injury. The end result will be more
double recoveries for claimants or possibly triple recoveries if a deliberate
intention claim is also filed. Whether a claimant could get around the requirements
of W.Va. Code § 23-4-2(d)(2)(ii)(C) remains to be seen.
Upon
reflection, I believe my earlier statement that the majority was “chipping
away” at the immunity conferred to employers by the Workers' Compensation
Act was incorrect. Employers have actually lost a sizeable chunk of that immunity
as a result of the majority's decision in this case, and I fear an avalanche
of cases will now be filed. As I noted in my dissent to Arnazi v. Quad/Graphics
Inc., W.Va. , S.E.2d (No. 31860, June 17, 2005), the West Virginia disability machine is still well-oiled
and running smoothly. Perhaps the West Virginia slogan “almost heaven” should
be changed to “claimants' paradise.” For these reasons, I respectfully
dissent.