INTRODUCTION
In Vanegas v. Triple S. Pallets, LLC, Record No. 1900-23-2 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2024), the Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s finding that the claimant’s claim was barred by willful misconduct.
THE FACTS
The claimant injured his right hand and middle finger while operating a wood-cutting saw. The saw had a safety guard, which was sometimes raised to clean the machine. The claimant admitted he knew of the employer’s safety rule mandating the guard’s placement before operating the saw. He used the saw almost daily and had not previously forgotten to replace the guard after cleaning. He also had not seen any co-workers operate the saw without the guard in place.
On the date of injury, the claimant turned off the machine and lifted the guard to clean the blade. He failed to replace the safety guard. The claimant and a co-worker then resumed use of the saw without the guard. The claimant walked by the machine, and accidentally touched it causing his injury. He testified he “forgot” to replace the guard on the date of injury. A video of the accident was entered into evidence. The video showed the claimant and his co-worker placing pieces of wood through the saw without the guard in place.
THE COURT’S FINDING
The Court noted four conditions must be met for the employer to prevail on a willful misconduct defense under Va. Code § 65.2-306(A)(5): (1) the employer’s safety rule was reasonable; (2) the rule was known to the employee; (3) the rule was created for the benefit of the employee; and (4) the employee intentionally undertook the forbidden act. In this case, the only disputed issue was whether the claimant intentionally undertook the forbidden act. The Court found that he did. In support of their finding, the Court noted the claimant intentionally performed the forbidden act by operating the saw without replacing the guard over the blade. He “knew the rule, adhered to it without failure for almost two years, observed others adhere to it, yet willfully failed to put the guard in place, causing his injury.” Given this, his claim was fully denied.