I. Local Government Law:
The most significant piece of legislation passed this session affecting local governments in Virginia was House Bill 1669 which grants protection to Virginia's counties, cities, and towns from liability arising from Year 2000 computer failures. Specifically, the act provides that no tort actions may be brought against Virginia counties, cities, towns, or entities established by local governments to provide public transportation services, or employees or officers of any of these bodies, based upon the failure of a computer, software program, database, network, information system, firmware, or other device as a result of the Year 2000 date change. While the act excludes acts or omissions constituting gross negligence or willful misconduct from its scope, the legislation will nonetheless preclude most Year 2000 lawsuits against local governments in Virginia because the higher standards necessary for liability will be difficult to establish. However, the right to bring actions against private companies or individuals for Year 2000 computer failures remains unaffected by this legislation. (See our articles on Public Safety and Courts and Civil Procedure for other Y2K legislation)
II. Workers' Compensation:
Although numerous bills were passed in the workers' compensation realm this past term, the effect of many of these bills will remain unclear until the Workers' Compensation Commission and the Court of Appeals are presented with opportunities to interpret these new statutory provisions. For instance, House Bill 2132 authorizes the Commission to waive the penalty ordinarily imposed when an employer or insurer fails to pay workers' compensation benefits in a timely manner if the Commission finds that any required payment has been made as promptly as practicable and (1) there is good cause outside the control of the employer for the delay or (2) in the case of a self-insured employer, the employer has issued the required payment to the employee as part of the next regular payroll after the payment becomes due. While self-insured employers may find some protection in this statutory change, most other employers should hesitate before relying on this provision at least until the Workers' Compensation Commission and the Court of Appeals provide some indication as to how "good cause outside the control of the employer" will be interpreted.
Similarly, the likely impact of House Bill 2505 is also unclear. This legislation provides that persons engaged in the business of property management services cannot be held liable as "statutory employers" under the Compensation Act if such persons are acting merely as agents for the property's owner, are not engaged in and have no employees engaged in the same business, trade, or occupation as the injured worker, and do not profit from the service of individuals engaged in such a business, trade, or occupation. Although the effect of this legislation is to limit the potential workers' compensation liability of property managers for injuries suffered by individuals working on the property for an employer other than the property manager, the effect of the provision will remain unclear until the cases clarify when a property manager "profits from the service of individuals" engaged in a business other than property management.
Other statutory changes to Virginia workers' compensation law include House Bill 2067 which amends the Virginia Workers' Compensation Act so as to permit employers or insurers to include chiropractors on the panel of physicians the Workers' Compensation Act requires be furnished to injured employees. Although this act expands the options of employers and insurers, the practical effect of this expansion is likely to be minimal due to the fact that employers and insurers are often skeptical of the necessity and effectiveness of chiropractic treatment and will therefore be reluctant to include chiropractors on any panel of physicians offered to an injured employee. Finally, House Bill 2724 clarifies the law regarding voluntary payments of workers' compensation benefits by stating that employers subject to the Workers' Compensation Act may voluntarily pay an employee benefits above and beyond those provided under the Act without affecting any existing right or remedy of the employer under the Act. By limiting its effect to those employers "subject to the Workers' Compensation Act," however, this legislation apparently leaves unchanged the rule that an employer not otherwise subject to the Virginia Workers' Compensation Act may subject itself to the Act by voluntarily paying compensation benefits to an injured employee.
Charles V. Mehler III