1
Chapter 31
Employment, Worker Protection, and Immigration Law
VI. Answers to Critical Legal Thinking Cases
31.1 Workers’ Compensation
Yes. Medrano’s actions at the time of the automobile accident were within the course and scope of his
employment, thus entitling his heirs to workers’ compensation benefits. MEC argued that it received no
benefit from Medrano’s attendance at the apprenticeship class and the death claim was not compensable.
However, the court held that there was substantial and competent evidence to support a finding that the
classroom instruction was beneficial to Medrano and his employer. Mike Mills, the owner and president
of MEC, testified: “The training made the employees more valuable to MEC by improving the quality of
31.2 Workers’ Compensation
Yes. Smith’s activities at the time of the accident were employment related. Decedent was a temporary
activities of the school, thus conferring the benefit of better teacher–student relationships. More
importantly, teachers were evaluated on whether they shared equally in the sponsorship or the supervision
employment, his accident that resulted from his engaging in the recreational activities that were part and
parcel of the picnic’s entertainment is causally connected to his employment. The court held that when
(Court of Appeal of California)
31.3 Occupational Safety
The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission prevails because an employer is required to
2
U.S. App. Lexis 11640 (United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit)
31.4 Occupational Safety
Yes. Corbesco, Inc. violated an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) safety standard.
The court held that Corbesco had violated OSHA’s safety standard that requires that safety nets be
provided when workers are more than 25 feet above the ground. Here, the building on which Roger
Matthew, a Corbesco employee, was working was 60 feet above the ground. When Matthew was on his
knees installing insulation on the roof, he lost his balance and fell 60 feet to the concrete below and died
VII. Answers to Ethics Cases
31.5 Ethics Case
an electrocution could not have been envisioned as a certain danger. Moreover, it is undisputed that the
Nordyne’s management, once aware of the apparatus’s problem, took measures, however ineffective they
may have been, to repair the apparatus. Nordyne’s management also took another safety measure:
warning the employees of the possibility of shocks. If anything, these remedial measures would have
31.6 Ethics Case
3
is whether that regulation is valid. The fundamental purpose of OSHA is to prevent occupational deaths