The exclusive remedy doctrine in Kentucky workers compensation law limits the circumstances in which an injured employee may recover anything other than workers compensation benefits. The scope and application of the exclusive remedy doctrine was illustrated in the recent Kentucky Court of Appeals decision, Helton v. Tri-County Cycles Barbourville, No. 2009-CA-000049-MR.
Helton was a salesman for Myers Chevrolet, which was owned by Gregory Wilcheck. Myers Chevrolet owned a 50% interest in Tri-County Cycles. The weekend before Tri-County was to formally open for business Helton was riding on the back of an ATV driven by Wilcheck during a sales demonstration for a customer. Helton had signed a sales representative contract with Tri-County; he and other Myers Chevrolet employees had been working to get Tri-County ready to open for business. Wilcheck began "jacking around" while operating the ATV, doing doughnuts and eventually causing it to tip over and badly injure Helton's leg. Helton filed for and received workers compensation benefits.
Helton then filed suit in circuit court for damages against Tri-County, Myers Chevrolet and Wilcheck. The court ruled that those claims were barred by the exclusive remedy doctrine, which "shall be exclusive and in place of all of the reliability of such employer to the employee [.]" First, the court noted that Helton held business licenses to act for both Myers Chevrolet and Tri-County, which made them his joint employer. Second, the claim against Wilcheck was barred, because an injured worker may sue a co-employee for damages on account of injuries sustained in the course of employment only where the injuries are caused by a willful and unprovoked act of physical aggression, not by reckless horseplay.
