Legal Opinion
Grillo v. National Bank of Washington
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided March 31, 1988No. 86-882PublishedCited by 59 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ROGERS, Associate Judge:
The question presented by this appeal is whether appellants have stated a cause of action under the intentional tort exception to the exclusive remedy provision of the District of Columbia Workers’ Compensation Act (“WCA”). D.C.Code § 36-304 (1981). The appeal arises out of the dismissal of a complaint under Super. Ct.Civ.R. 12(b)(6) for the failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. We hold that only injuries specifically intended by the employer to be inflicted on the particular employee who is injured fall outside of the exclusivity provisions of the…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- M. A. P. v. RyanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1971
- Far East Conference v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Mingachos v. CBS, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- Bazley v. TortorichSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1981
- Peoples Drug Stores, Inc. v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1983
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by59 opinions
- Sharon Rollins v. Wackenhut Services, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2012
- Johnson v. District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2008
- District of Columbia v. ThompsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
- Smith v. District of Columbia Department of Employment ServicesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1988
- Feirson v. District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2007
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.