BASIC RULE
Workers’ compensation is an employee’s exclusive remedy for injuries that arise out of employment and occur in the course of employment. KRS 342.690(1).
This means that the employee cannot sue the employer in tort (where the employee might obtain money damages), such as by claiming that the employer’s negligence caused his injury. For example, the employee would not be able to obtain monetary relief for the paint and suffering he or she experienced.
INTENTIONAL INJURY EXCEPTION
If an employer (or an agent of the employer) acts with a deliberate intent to injure the worker, the immunity is waived. The employee must show the employer had a specific intent to injure, not merely knowledge that injury was likely. Gross negligence or reckless disregard is not enough; there must be specific intent to cause harm.
“THIRD PARTY” LAWSUITS
Employees can file personal injury lawsuits against third parties (e.g., equipment manufacturers, contractors) whose negligence caused or contributed to their injury.
EMPLOYER FAILS TO OBTAIN COVERAGE
If the employer fails to carry workers’ compensation insurance, the employee can choose to either file a compensation claim or sue the employer in court.
DUAL CAPACITY DOCTRINE EXCEPTION
This exception involves the rare situation where the employer has a second legal relationship with the employee that is independent of the employment relationship. An example is a product manufacturer whose defective product injures the employee. Kentucky courts very rarely apply this exception.
PROTECTION FOR CONTRACTORS
Kentucky law provides protection for contractors known as “up-the-ladder” immunity. A contractor who subcontracts work that is a regular or recurrent part of its business becomes a “statutory employer.” That contractor receives workers’ compensation immunity from lawsuits filed by employees of the subcontractor.
RECENT CASES
Sattenberg v. University Medical Center, Inc., No. 2024-CA-0017 (MR) (Ky. App. 01/16/26, unpublished).
A radiologist fell over exposed cords at the medical center where he worked, sustaining severe back and head injuries. The medical center was not his direct employer, however. The center contracted with the radiologist’s direct employers to perform radiology services. The court found that the radiologist’s work was a “regular or recurrent” part of the medical center’s work and was statutorily necessary for the medical center’s operations. Thus, the radiologist was subject to the state’s exclusive remedy bar and unable to sue the medical center in tort.
Brennan v. Progress Rail Servs., No. 2022-CA-1274-MR (Ky. App. 09/08/23, unpublished).
The employee allegedly suffered an umbilical hernia at work. His workers’ compensation claim was denied on the basis that the injury was not work-related but was the result of an acute bout of gastroenteritis. He then brought a civil lawsuit against his employer. The court dismissed it based on the exclusive remedy rule, reasoning that the employee’s only remedy was to succeed on his workers’ compensation case.
Roundtree v. AVI Food Systems, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-086 (WOB-CJS) (E..D. Ky. 08/15/23).
A cook in an airport claimed that another female employee sexually harassed her at work. She sued her employer for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. The court noted that while the employee alleged negligence, that was not enough for her to fall under an exception to the exclusive remedy rule. “Indeed, the Sixth Circuit has explicitly held that the KWCA preempts such claims of negligent hiring, retention, and supervision because it ‘provides the exclusive remedy where an employee is injured by her employer’s negligent actions,’” the court wrote.
EXCLUSIVITY RULE IN NEIGHBORING STATES
Indiana
Ohio
Tennessee
Virginia
Looking for compliance info on exclusive remedy rules in your state? Head to Simply Research.
