Workers comp can protect employers too
Published 03/06/08

Under New Hampshire 's worker's compensation law, if you are injured at work you are able to recover from your employer's insurance company a certain amount of compensation and payment of medical bills without proving that the employer was at fault for your injuries. The trade off is that there are limits to the amounts you can collect and your potential for recovery could be a lot less than if you were to sue and be successful in a negligence claim against the third party.

The worker's compensation law does not give an injured worker an option of either suing his employer by proceeding under the worker's compensation scheme. The worker must proceed under the worker's compensation scheme.

In the case of Michelle Alonzi, the Administratrix of the Estate of Glenn Hopkins v. Northeast Generation Services Company, et al , the New Hampshire Supreme Court, on January 15, 2008 held that a representative of the decedent worker could not bring an action on behalf of his estate asserting negligence and wrongful death claims against the employer because the employer is immune from tort liability under the worker's compensation exclusivity provision noted above.

The representative of the decedent's estate asserted that, based upon prior legal precedent, the estate of a worker who died without dependents could proceed with a wrongful death action against his employer because of the worker's compensation provision that applies to that circumstance is unconstitutional since it unfairly treats decedents without dependents who are injured at work differently from decedents without dependents who are inside of work.

The Court overruled its previous legal precedent and declared that the exclusivity of the death benefit provision under the worker's compensation law does not offend the equal protection guaranty of the New Hampshire Constitution and therefore the representative of the decedent's estate was from barred from proceeding forward with a wrongful discharge claim against the employer, Northeast Generation Services Company.

In a detailed analysis, the Court noted that the New Hampshire legislature by enacting the worker's compensation law sought to balance the competing needs of employers and workers, address the injured worker's lost earning capacity, and protect those who depended upon the worker's lost wages. Recovery available to an injured worker is limited when compared with the recovery available under the negligence laws and New Hampshire 's wrongful death statute. The Court noted that this was part of a balance struck by the legislature when it enacted the worker's compensation law.

The worker's compensation statute holds that the estate of a dependentless decedent killed at work could recover no more than $5,000 in burial expenses wherein the estate of a dependentless decedent who was killed outside of work could pursue a wrongful death claim and if it was proven that a third party was liable for his injuries, the estate could recover up to $50,000 in damages.

The Court found that the worker's compensation law's failure to provide benefits to the estates of dependentless decedents for the decedent's lost wages is in keeping with the purpose of the comprehensive scheme to protect those who were dependent upon the worker's wages, that were diminished or lost due to workplace injury.

Therefore, in that case, the decedent's estate was barred from proceeding with a claim the employer and was left with merely the right to collect the $5,000 in burial expenses from the employer. This holding did not affect the decedent's estate's claims against two other defendants, Waste Management of New Hampshire, Inc. and Transformer Services, Inc. If the decedent's estate was to prove a tort claim against either of those non-employer defendants, presumably, the estate may be able to obtain a judgment up to $50,000 pursuant to the New Hampshire wrongful death statute as it applies to dependentless decedents' estates.

This decision clarifies that employers will still be protected under the worker's compensation law from wrongful death claims in that the Court has found that the worker's compensation laws' remedies, when compared to the remedies afforded people injured outside of work, are constitutionally valid.

J. Daniel Marr is a director and shareholder of Hamblett & Kerrigan, P.A. His legal practice includes counseling businesses and business persons on a variety of legal issues, including employment, and advocating on their behalf. You can reach Attorney Marr by e-mail at: dmarr@hamker.com

This information is general information and may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. The information provided should not be relied upon as an indication of the actual state of the law or of future developments. The information contained on the Hamblett & Kerrigan website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If the information referenced may be of legal importance to you, you should consult with an attorney to provide you with legal guidance and opinion as the the effect of the current law upon your situation.