In West Virginia and other states, employers that provide workers' compensation coverage generally enjoy immunity from liability for personal injuries suffered by employees; meaning an injured employee is usually limited to benefits available under the workers' compensation system. However, there is an exception. The exception occurs when an injured employee or a family member brings a lawsuit alleging that the injuries resulted from the company's deliberate intent. Deliberate intent causes the company to lose its workers' compensation immunity and be held liable in a court action for damages.
A Mandolidis case, or deliberate intent case, arises when an employer exposes the employee to a known, dangerous workplace condition. These conditions include working at elevated heights without fall restraints or working with an electrical saw that is missing a safety guard when the employer is aware, but does nothing causing an employee to severely cut his hand.
W.Va. Code 23-4-2(c)(2)(ii) (1991)
(ii) The trier of fact determines, either through specific findings of fact made by the court in a trial without a jury, or through special interrogatories to the jury in a jury trial, that all of the following facts are proven:
(A) That a specific unsafe working condition existed in the workplace which presented a high degree of risk and a strong probability of serious injury or death;
(B) That the employer, prior to the injury, had actual knowledge of the existence of the specific unsafe working condition and of the high degree of risk and the strong probability of serious injury or death presented by the specific unsafe working condition;
(C) That the specific unsafe working condition was a violation of a state or federal safety statute, rule or regulation, whether cited or not, or of a commonly accepted and well-known safety standard within the industry or business of the employer, as demonstrated by competent evidence of written standards or guidelines which reflect a consensus safety standard in the industry or business, which statute, rule, regulation or standard was specifically applicable to the particular work and working condition involved, as contrasted with a statute, rule, regulation or standard generally requiring safe workplaces, equipment or working conditions;
(D) That notwithstanding the existence of the facts set forth in subparagraphs (A) through (C), inclusive, of this paragraph, the employer nevertheless intentionally thereafter exposed an employee to the specific unsafe working condition; and
(E) That the employee exposed suffered serious compensable injury or compensable death as defined in section one, article four, chapter twenty-three whether a claim for benefits under this chapter is filed or not as a direct and proximate result of the specific unsafe working condition.
