A. If such employer fails to comply with the provisions of § 65.2-800 or 65.2-804, he shall be assessed a civil penalty of not more than $250 per day for each day of noncompliance, subject to a maximum penalty of $50,000. Such employer also shall be liable during continuance of such failure to any employee either for compensation under this title or at law in a suit instituted by the employee against such employer to recover damages for personal injury or death by accident, and in any such suit such employer shall not be permitted to defend upon any of the following grounds:
1. That the employee was negligent;
2. That the injury was caused by the negligence of a fellow employee; or
3. That the employee had assumed the risk of the injury.
B. Any person who fails to comply with the provisions of § 65.2-803.1 shall be assessed a civil penalty of not less than $500 nor more than $5,000 for each instance of noncompliance, in addition to any other penalties applicable under this title.
C. The civil penalties herein provided may be assessed by the Commission in an open hearing with the right of review and appeal as in other cases. Upon a finding by the Commission of such failure to comply, and after 15 days' written notice thereof sent by certified mail to the employer, if such failure continues, the Commission may order the employer to cease and desist all business transactions and operations until found by the Commission to be in compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
D. Any civil penalty assessed pursuant to this section shall be divided equally between and paid into the administrative fund established in Chapter 10 (§ 65.2-1000 et seq.) and the Uninsured Employer's Fund established in Chapter 12 (§ 65.2-1200 et seq.). The Commission may add the costs of collection of such civil penalty to the aggregate civil penalty owed, in which event such costs shall be paid into the administrative fund established in Chapter 10 (§ 65.2-1000 et seq.).
Code 1950, § 65-102; 1968, c. 660, § 65.1-106; 1970, c. 470; 1974, c. 314; 1980, c. 443; 1991, c. 355; 1993, c. 378; 2005, c. 69; 2014, c. 204.
Notes of Decisions
Turf Care, Inc. v. Henson, 657 S.E.2d 787 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “2-800, it did not impose a civil penalty pursuant to Code § 65.2-805 because it found that Turf Care “reasonably relied on [Source One’s] contractual obligations and sought to obtain a valid policy, once discovering it was uninsured.”
Creative Designs Tattooing Assocs., Inc. v. Parrish, 693 S.E.2d 303 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 4× “CIVIL PENALTY AGAINST CREATIVE DESIGNS Code § 65.2-805 authorizes the commission to assess a civil penalty against an employer for failing to provide workers' compensation insurance.”
Wade v. Scott Recycling, L.L.C., 89 Va. Cir. 319 (Roanoke County Cir. Ct. 2014).
· cites it 21× “*320 Analysis Wade argues that, pursuant to Va. Code § 65.2-805, he is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of Scott Recycling’s liability.”
The Cura Grp., Inc. v. Virginia Workers' Comp. Comm'n, 612 S.E.2d 735 (Va. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 6× “The show cause order cited Code § 65.2-805, which authorizes the imposition of a civil penalty for violating the insurance reporting requirement contained in Code § 65.”
Bailey v. Hensley, 93 Va. Cir. 344 (Roanoke County Cir. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 68× “” Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-805 (A) (emphasis added).”
Redifer v. Chester (Va. 2012).
· cites it 24× “2-805, such an employee is not subject to the concept or defense of election, but is entitled to the 1 The circuit court also dismissed Chester and CSLC as defendants in accordance with the Commission’s determination that Cestari, and not Chester or CSLC, was Redifer’s employer.”
Wade v. Recycling, L.L.C., 87 Va. Cir. 112 (Roanoke County Cir. Ct. 2013).
· cites it 21× “When an employer obtains the required insurance, an injured employee has no cause of action against the employer or his coworkers.”
Wilmouth v. Reardon, 30 Va. Cir. 97 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1993).
· cites it 7× “See Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-805 (1991) (allowing an employee whose employer has failed to comply with the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act to sue the employer at common law and denying that employer the use of the common law defenses of Assumption of Risk, Contributory…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-805(A) — 5 cases
Bailey v. Hensley, 93 Va. Cir. 344 (Roanoke County Cir. Ct. 2016).
“” Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-805 (A) (emphasis added).”
Wade v. Recycling, L.L.C., 87 Va. Cir. 112 (Roanoke County Cir. Ct. 2013).
“When an employer obtains the required insurance, an injured employee has no cause of action against the employer or his coworkers.”
Redifer v. Chester (Va. 2012).
“2-805, such an employee is not subject to the concept or defense of election, but is entitled to the 1 The circuit court also dismissed Chester and CSLC as defendants in accordance with the Commission’s determination that Cestari, and not Chester or CSLC, was Redifer’s employer.”
Wilmouth v. Reardon, 30 Va. Cir. 97 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1993).
“See Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-805 (1991) (allowing an employee whose employer has failed to comply with the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act to sue the employer at common law and denying that employer the use of the common law defenses of Assumption of Risk, Contributory…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-805(D) — 1 case
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.