You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Batal Builders, Inc. v. Hi-Tech Concrete, Inc.

Citations: 18 Va. App. 401; 444 S.E.2d 555; 10 Va. Law Rep. 1406; 1994 Va. App. LEXIS 331Docket: No. 1571-93-4

Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia; May 24, 1994; Virginia; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this workers' compensation case, Batal Builders, Inc. and its insurer, American Alliance Insurance Company, appealed a commission ruling that held them as the sole statutory employers liable for injuries sustained by an employee of a subcontractor, P&P Construction. The employee, injured on June 23, 1990, had reported the injury to his supervisor at P&P, but later discovered P&P lacked workers' compensation insurance. Batal argued that the employee's delayed notice of injury barred his compensation claim and contended that Hi-Tech Concrete, Inc., another statutory employer, should be liable. The commission found the employee had a reasonable excuse for the delay, citing his limited education and lack of English proficiency, and determined that neither Batal nor Hi-Tech was prejudiced by the late notice. The court ruled that economic loss due to lack of indemnification does not meet the statutory definition of prejudice, affirming the employee's right to compensation from both statutory employers. The court reversed the commission's finding that Hi-Tech was prejudiced and remanded the case for further consideration of indemnification issues between the employers. The decision was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for additional proceedings.

Legal Issues Addressed

Indemnification Between Statutory Employers

Application: The case was remanded for the commission to address the issue of indemnification between the statutory employers, as it was not previously considered.

Reasoning: Additionally, the court remands the case for the commission to address the indemnification issue between the statutory employers.

Prejudice Under Workers' Compensation Statute

Application: The court determined that economic loss due to lack of indemnification does not constitute prejudice under the statute, which focuses on timely medical treatment and claim investigation.

Reasoning: The court concludes that economic loss due to a lack of indemnification does not constitute the prejudice described in the statute.

Statutory Employer Liability Under Code § 65.2-600

Application: Batal Builders, Inc. and Hi-Tech Concrete, Inc. were determined to be statutory employers liable for the claimant’s workers’ compensation benefits.

Reasoning: Both statutory employers were similarly positioned, unable to withhold payments from subcontractors to cover liabilities owed to the claimant.

Workers' Compensation Notification Requirements

Application: The commission found that Portillo had a reasonable excuse for the notification delay, and neither Batal nor Hi-Tech suffered prejudice from the late notice.

Reasoning: Claimant promptly reported his injury to his supervisor at P&P, who assured him he was covered by their insurance and that notifying them sufficed for coverage.