Virginia Code
Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-306 (2026)
When compensation not allowed for injury or death; burden of proof
✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A. No compensation shall be awarded to the employee or his dependents for an injury or death caused by:
1. The employee's willful misconduct or intentional self-inflicted injury;
2. The employee's attempt to injure another;
3. The employee's intoxication;
4. The employee's willful failure or refusal to use a safety appliance or perform a duty required by statute;
5. The employee's willful breach of any reasonable rule or regulation adopted by the employer and brought, prior to the accident, to the knowledge of the employee; or
6. The employee's use of a nonprescribed controlled substance identified as such in Chapter 34 (§ 54.1-3400 et seq.) of Title 54.1.
B. The person or entity asserting any of the defenses in this section shall have the burden of proof with respect thereto. However, if the employer raises as a defense the employee's intoxication or use of a nonprescribed controlled substance identified as such in Chapter 34 of Title 54.1, and there was at the time of the injury an amount of alcohol or nonprescribed controlled substance in the bodily fluids of the employee which (i) is equal to or greater than the standard set forth in § 18.2-266, or (ii) in the case of use of a nonprescribed controlled substance, yields a positive test result from a Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) certified laboratory, there shall be a rebuttable presumption, which presumption shall not be available if the employee dies as a result of his injuries, that the employee was intoxicated due to the consumption of alcohol or using a nonprescribed controlled substance at the time of his injury. The employee may overcome such a presumption by clear and convincing evidence.
Code 1950, § 65-35; 1968, c. 660, § 65.1-38; 1991, cc. 166, 355; 1994, cc. 600, 804; 2002, c. 636.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 72
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1992–2024 · leading case: Melvin L. Layne v. Crist Elec. Contractor, Inc., 768 S.E.2d 261 (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
Melvin L. Layne v. Crist Elec. Contractor, Inc., 768 S.E.2d 261 (Va. Ct. App. 2015). “at 264 , the Supreme Court of Virginia interpreted the meaning of the word “wilful” from Section 14 of the former Workmens’ Compensation Act— which is now Code § 65.2-306 of the current Workers’ Compensation Act.”
Artis v. Ottenberg's Bakers, Inc., 608 S.E.2d 512 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). “[4] Code § 65.2-306(A) provides that "[n]o compensation shall be awarded to the employee or his dependents for an injury or death caused by (1) The employee's willful misconduct or intentional self-inflicted injury.”
Dominion Coal Corp. v. Bowman, 672 S.E.2d 122 (Va. Ct. App. 2009). “” Code § 65.2-306 provides six defenses an employer may raise in response to a workers’ compensation claim based on a claimant’s alleged misconduct.”
Abdelhadi Mouhssine v. Crystal City Laundry & New Hampshire Ins. Co., 741 S.E.2d 804 (Va. Ct. App. 2013). “Although the commission’s opinion in this case generally described the statutory defense under Code § 65.2-306 as “willful misconduct,” the commission actually concluded, under the circumstances of this case, that employer satisfied the elements of the specific defense set forth…”
Lowes of Short Pump Virginia v. Campbell, 561 S.E.2d 757 (Va. Ct. App. 2002). “The Workers’ Compensation Commission ruled (1) that Lowes of Short Pump Virginia failed to give timely notice of its intent to rely upon a defense under Code § 65.2-306, (2) that James D. Campbell was entitled to an award for a compensable injury by accident, and (3) that Lowes…”
Gwaltney of Smithfield v. Lynnecia Hagins, 528 S.E.2d 162 (Va. Ct. App. 2000). “Code § 65.2-306 provides, in pertinent part: When compensation not allowed for injury or death; burden of proof.”
Andre Jones v. Crothall Laundry & New Hampshire Ins. Co., 823 S.E.2d 37 (Va. Ct. App. 2019). “at 349 (noting that the employer bears the burden of proving the elements of a defense under Code § 65.2-306(A)). In pertinent part, Code § 65.”
Jenkins v. Webb, 662 S.E.2d 633 (Va. Ct. App. 2008). “In denying the claim, the deputy commissioner noted that the claimant did not attempt to rebut Jenkins’ testimony.”
Brockway v. Easter, 456 S.E.2d 159 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). “Employer contends that claimant is not entitled to an award and alleges that, in violation of Code § 65.2-306 and an established rule of employer, 1 claimant’s injury was due solely to his willful misconduct.”
Stillwell v. Lewis Tree Serv., Inc., 624 S.E.2d 681 (Va. Ct. App. 2006). “He reasons that the issue of whether he was the aggressor in the fight is analogous to the issue of whether he engaged in “willful misconduct” within the meaning of Code § 65.2-306(A)(5). Because the “willful misconduct” defense is an affirmative defense, see Code § 65.”
Food Distributors & Century Indem. Co. v. Est. of Ball, 485 S.E.2d 155 (Va. Ct. App. 1997). “Lewis’ opinion regarding causation and the doctrine of compensable consequences to find decedent’s action outside the scope of the bar of Code § 65.2-306(A)(1). The commission reviewed the history of decedent’s injury, pain, depression, and treatment, as well as evidence…”
Buzzo v. Woolridge Trucking, Inc., 437 S.E.2d 205 (Va. Ct. App. 1993). “Code § 65.2-306(A). To successfully raise a defense of willful misconduct, the employer must establish “(1) that the safety rule [or other duty] was reasonable, (2) that the rule was known to [the employee], (3) that the rule was for [the employee’s] benefit, and (4) that [the…”
Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-306(1): 2 cases
Gary W. Ritenour v. Merit Janitorial Servs., No. 0406953 (Va. Ct. App. July 18, 1995).
Georgia-Pac. Corp. v. Antionette Hicks, No. 0858972 (Va. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 1997).
Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-306(5): 1 case
Gary W. Ritenour v. Merit Janitorial Servs., No. 0406953 (Va. Ct. App. July 18, 1995).
Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-306(A): 21 cases
Artis v. Ottenberg's Bakers, Inc., 608 S.E.2d 512 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). “[4] Code § 65.2-306(A) provides that "[n]o compensation shall be awarded to the employee or his dependents for an injury or death caused by (1) The employee's willful misconduct or intentional self-inflicted injury.”
Andre Jones v. Crothall Laundry & New Hampshire Ins. Co., 823 S.E.2d 37 (Va. Ct. App. 2019). “at 349 (noting that the employer bears the burden of proving the elements of a defense under Code § 65.2-306(A)). In pertinent part, Code § 65.”
Melvin L. Layne v. Crist Elec. Contractor, Inc., 768 S.E.2d 261 (Va. Ct. App. 2015). “at 264 , the Supreme Court of Virginia interpreted the meaning of the word “wilful” from Section 14 of the former Workmens’ Compensation Act— which is now Code § 65.2-306 of the current Workers’ Compensation Act.”
Buzzo v. Woolridge Trucking, Inc., 437 S.E.2d 205 (Va. Ct. App. 1993). “Code § 65.2-306(A). To successfully raise a defense of willful misconduct, the employer must establish “(1) that the safety rule [or other duty] was reasonable, (2) that the rule was known to [the employee], (3) that the rule was for [the employee’s] benefit, and (4) that [the…”
Abdelhadi Mouhssine v. Crystal City Laundry & New Hampshire Ins. Co., 741 S.E.2d 804 (Va. Ct. App. 2013). “Although the commission’s opinion in this case generally described the statutory defense under Code § 65.2-306 as “willful misconduct,” the commission actually concluded, under the circumstances of this case, that employer satisfied the elements of the specific defense set forth…”
Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-306(A)(1): 13 cases
Artis v. Ottenberg's Bakers, Inc., 608 S.E.2d 512 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). “[4] Code § 65.2-306(A) provides that "[n]o compensation shall be awarded to the employee or his dependents for an injury or death caused by (1) The employee's willful misconduct or intentional self-inflicted injury.”
Food Distributors & Century Indem. Co. v. Est. of Ball, 485 S.E.2d 155 (Va. Ct. App. 1997). “Lewis’ opinion regarding causation and the doctrine of compensable consequences to find decedent’s action outside the scope of the bar of Code § 65.2-306(A)(1). The commission reviewed the history of decedent’s injury, pain, depression, and treatment, as well as evidence…”
Gwaltney of Smithfield v. Lynnecia Hagins, 528 S.E.2d 162 (Va. Ct. App. 2000). “Code § 65.2-306 provides, in pertinent part: When compensation not allowed for injury or death; burden of proof.”
Sally Inez Adams v. Hercules, Inc., 465 S.E.2d 135 (Va. Ct. App. 1995).
Andersen Interior Contracting v. Samuel Nimmo, No. 1286162 (Va. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2017).
Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-306(A)(2): 1 case
Fairfax Cnty. Gov't v. Victoria Monroe, No. 1628144 (Va. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2015).
Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-306(A)(3): 1 case
Andersen Interior Contracting v. Samuel Nimmo, No. 1286162 (Va. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2017).
Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-306(A)(4): 4 cases
Lafayette Finney v. David F. Mason & Virginia Farm Bureau Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 2844031 (Va. Ct. App. July 13, 2004).
Randall Lee Patterson v. Valley Proteins, Inc., No. 1707053 (Va. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2006).
Parker Mizelle v. Holiday Ice, Inc., No. 1115191 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2020).
Jon W. Jungers v. N. Powers, No. 1207982 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 1998).
Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-306(A)(5): 19 cases
Melvin L. Layne v. Crist Elec. Contractor, Inc., 768 S.E.2d 261 (Va. Ct. App. 2015). “at 264 , the Supreme Court of Virginia interpreted the meaning of the word “wilful” from Section 14 of the former Workmens’ Compensation Act— which is now Code § 65.2-306 of the current Workers’ Compensation Act.”
Abdelhadi Mouhssine v. Crystal City Laundry & New Hampshire Ins. Co., 741 S.E.2d 804 (Va. Ct. App. 2013). “Although the commission’s opinion in this case generally described the statutory defense under Code § 65.2-306 as “willful misconduct,” the commission actually concluded, under the circumstances of this case, that employer satisfied the elements of the specific defense set forth…”
Gwaltney of Smithfield v. Lynnecia Hagins, 528 S.E.2d 162 (Va. Ct. App. 2000). “Code § 65.2-306 provides, in pertinent part: When compensation not allowed for injury or death; burden of proof.”
Stillwell v. Lewis Tree Serv., Inc., 624 S.E.2d 681 (Va. Ct. App. 2006). “He reasons that the issue of whether he was the aggressor in the fight is analogous to the issue of whether he engaged in “willful misconduct” within the meaning of Code § 65.2-306(A)(5). Because the “willful misconduct” defense is an affirmative defense, see Code § 65.”
Truteam & Ace Am. Ins. v. Gloria C. DeQuintanilla, No. 0719214 (Va. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2022).
Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-306(A)(6): 2 cases
Dominion Coal Corp. v. Bowman, 672 S.E.2d 122 (Va. Ct. App. 2009). “” Code § 65.2-306 provides six defenses an employer may raise in response to a workers’ compensation claim based on a claimant’s alleged misconduct.”
Freddie J. Fleming v. Snap Cont'g & Twin City Ins, No. 1017971 (Va. Ct. App. Sept. 9, 1997).
Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-306(A)(l): 3 cases
Food Distributors & Century Indem. Co. v. Est. of Ball, 485 S.E.2d 155 (Va. Ct. App. 1997). “Lewis’ opinion regarding causation and the doctrine of compensable consequences to find decedent’s action outside the scope of the bar of Code § 65.2-306(A)(1). The commission reviewed the history of decedent’s injury, pain, depression, and treatment, as well as evidence…”
Gwaltney of Smithfield v. Lynnecia Hagins, 528 S.E.2d 162 (Va. Ct. App. 2000). “Code § 65.2-306 provides, in pertinent part: When compensation not allowed for injury or death; burden of proof.”
Sally Inez Adams v. Hercules, Inc., 465 S.E.2d 135 (Va. Ct. App. 1995).
Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-306(B): 16 cases
Dominion Coal Corp. v. Bowman, 672 S.E.2d 122 (Va. Ct. App. 2009). “” Code § 65.2-306 provides six defenses an employer may raise in response to a workers’ compensation claim based on a claimant’s alleged misconduct.”
Jenkins v. Webb, 662 S.E.2d 633 (Va. Ct. App. 2008). “In denying the claim, the deputy commissioner noted that the claimant did not attempt to rebut Jenkins’ testimony.”
Melvin L. Layne v. Crist Elec. Contractor, Inc., 768 S.E.2d 261 (Va. Ct. App. 2015). “at 264 , the Supreme Court of Virginia interpreted the meaning of the word “wilful” from Section 14 of the former Workmens’ Compensation Act— which is now Code § 65.2-306 of the current Workers’ Compensation Act.”
Stillwell v. Lewis Tree Serv., Inc., 624 S.E.2d 681 (Va. Ct. App. 2006). “He reasons that the issue of whether he was the aggressor in the fight is analogous to the issue of whether he engaged in “willful misconduct” within the meaning of Code § 65.2-306(A)(5). Because the “willful misconduct” defense is an affirmative defense, see Code § 65.”
Brockway v. Easter, 456 S.E.2d 159 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). “Employer contends that claimant is not entitled to an award and alleges that, in violation of Code § 65.2-306 and an established rule of employer, 1 claimant’s injury was due solely to his willful misconduct.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.