{"formats":[{"name":"JSON","format":"json","url":"\/downloads\/2026\/code-json\/65.2-306.json"},{"name":"Plain Text","format":"text","url":"\/downloads\/2026\/code-text\/65.2-306.txt"},{"name":"XML","format":"xml","url":"\/downloads\/2026\/code-xml\/65.2-306.xml"},{"name":"HTML","format":"html","url":"\/downloads\/2026\/code-html\/65.2-306.html"}],"law_id":376584,"edition_id":2,"section_id":376584,"structure_id":53546,"section_number":"65.2-306","catch_line":"When compensation not allowed for injury or death; burden of proof","history":"Code 1950, \u00a7 65-35; 1968, c. 660, \u00a7 65.1-38; 1991, cc. 166, 355; 1994, cc. 600, 804; 2002, c. 636.","full_text":"A\n\nNo compensation shall be awarded to the employee or his dependents for an injury or death caused by:\n\n1\n\nThe employee’s willful misconduct or intentional self-inflicted injury;\n\n2\n\nThe employee’s attempt to injure another;\n\n3\n\nThe employee’s intoxication;\n\n4\n\nThe employee’s willful failure or refusal to use a safety appliance or perform a duty required by statute;\n\n5\n\nThe 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\n\n6\n\nThe employee’s use of a nonprescribed controlled substance identified as such in Chapter 34 (§ 54.1-3400 et seq.) of Title 54.1.\n\nB\n\nThe 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.\n\n","order_by":null,"text":{"0":{"id":1406150,"text":"No compensation shall be awarded to the employee or his dependents for an injury or death caused by:","type":"section","prefixes":["A"],"prefix":"A","entire_prefix":"A","prefix_anchor":"A","level":1,"next_prefix":"A1"},"1":{"id":1406151,"text":"The employee’s willful misconduct or intentional self-inflicted injury;","type":"section","prefixes":["A","1"],"prefix":"1","entire_prefix":"A1","prefix_anchor":"A1","level":2,"prior_prefix":"A","next_prefix":"A2"},"2":{"id":1406152,"text":"The employee’s attempt to injure another;","type":"section","prefixes":["A","2"],"prefix":"2","entire_prefix":"A2","prefix_anchor":"A2","level":2,"prior_prefix":"A1","next_prefix":"A3"},"3":{"id":1406153,"text":"The employee’s intoxication;","type":"section","prefixes":["A","3"],"prefix":"3","entire_prefix":"A3","prefix_anchor":"A3","level":2,"prior_prefix":"A2","next_prefix":"A4"},"4":{"id":1406154,"text":"The employee’s willful failure or refusal to use a safety appliance or perform a duty required by statute;","type":"section","prefixes":["A","4"],"prefix":"4","entire_prefix":"A4","prefix_anchor":"A4","level":2,"prior_prefix":"A3","next_prefix":"A5"},"5":{"id":1406155,"text":"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","type":"section","prefixes":["A","5"],"prefix":"5","entire_prefix":"A5","prefix_anchor":"A5","level":2,"prior_prefix":"A4","next_prefix":"A6"},"6":{"id":1406156,"text":"The employee’s use of a nonprescribed controlled substance identified as such in Chapter 34 (§ 54.1-3400 et seq.) of Title 54.1.","type":"section","prefixes":["A","6"],"prefix":"6","entire_prefix":"A6","prefix_anchor":"A6","level":2,"prior_prefix":"A5","next_prefix":"B"},"7":{"id":1406157,"text":"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.","type":"section","prefixes":["B"],"prefix":"B","entire_prefix":"B","prefix_anchor":"B","level":1,"prior_prefix":"A6"}},"ancestry":[{"id":53546,"edition_id":2,"name":"Application and Effect of Title","identifier":"3","label":"chapter","depth":2,"order_by":3,"parent_id":53539,"metadata":{"child_laws":17,"child_structures":0},"date_created":"2026-08-02 03:18:08","date_modified":"2026-08-02 12:37:27","permalink":{"id":1503287,"object_type":"structure","relational_id":53546,"identifier":"3","token":"65.2\/3","url":"\/65.2\/3\/","edition_id":2,"permalink":0,"preferred":1}},{"id":53539,"edition_id":2,"name":"Workers' Compensation","identifier":"65.2","label":"title","depth":1,"order_by":138,"parent_id":null,"metadata":{"child_laws":163,"child_structures":13},"date_created":"2026-08-02 03:18:04","date_modified":"2026-08-02 12:37:26","permalink":{"id":1503117,"object_type":"structure","relational_id":53539,"identifier":"65.2","token":"65.2","url":"\/65.2\/","edition_id":2,"permalink":0,"preferred":1}}],"structure_contents":[{"id":376576,"structure_id":53546,"section_number":"65.2-300","catch_line":"Presumption of acceptance of provisions of title; exemptions; notice and rejection","url":"\/65.2-300\/","token":"65.2\/3\/65.2-300","metadata":false},{"id":376579,"structure_id":53546,"section_number":"65.2-301","catch_line":"Victims of sexual assault","url":"\/65.2-301\/","token":"65.2\/3\/65.2-301","metadata":{"court_decisions":{"0":{"name":" .\u202f.\u202f. Hartman v. Retailers & Manufacturers Distribution Marking .\u202f.\u202f. ","case_number":"Civil Action No. 7:12-cv-00199","citation":"929 F. Supp. 2d 581","date":"2013-03-08","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/8723414\/hartman-v-retailers-manufacturers-distribution-marking-service-inc\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. MEMORANDUM OPINION .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"District Court, W.D. Virginia"},"1":{"name":"Butler v. SOUTHERN STATES CO-OP., INC.","case_number":"Record 050022.","citation":"620 S.E.2d 768","date":"2005-11-04","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1058908\/butler-v-southern-states-co-op-inc\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 620 S.E.2d 768 (2005) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"2":{"name":"Carr v. City of Norfolk","case_number":"Record No. 1993-91-1","citation":"422 S.E.2d 417","date":"1992-10-20","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1325576\/carr-v-city-of-norfolk\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 422 S.E.2d 417 (1992) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"COA<\/abbr>"},"3":{"name":"Shannon Conner v. City of Danville","case_number":"1486184","citation":"826 S.E.2d 337","date":"2019-04-23","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/4612367\/shannon-conner-v-city-of-danville\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"COA<\/abbr>"},"4":{"name":"M.G. v. Albemarle County Department of Social Services","case_number":"0230032","citation":"583 S.E.2d 761","date":"2003-07-22","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1064171\/mg-v-albemarle-county-department-of-social-services\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 583 S.E.2d 761 (2003) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"COA<\/abbr>"},"5":{"name":"Beardsley v. Isom","case_number":"Civ. A. No. 92-1294-A","citation":"828 F. Supp. 397","date":"1993-03-10","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/2351987\/beardsley-v-isom\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 828 F.Supp. 397 (1993) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"District Court, E.D. Virginia"},"6":{"name":" .\u202f.\u202f. Cary O'Donoghue v. United Continental Holdings, Inc. and .\u202f.\u202f. ","case_number":"1149184","citation":"824 S.E.2d 519","date":"2019-03-26","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/4603610\/cary-odonoghue-v-united-continental-holdings-inc-and-united-airlines\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"COA<\/abbr>"},"7":{"name":"Hott v. VDO Yazaki Corp.","case_number":"Civil A. 94-00064-H","citation":"922 F. Supp. 1114","date":"1996-04-02","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1592683\/hott-v-vdo-yazaki-corp\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 922 F.Supp. 1114 (1996) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"District Court, W.D. Virginia"},"8":{"name":"Beardsley v. Isom","case_number":"Civ. A. No. 92-1294-A","citation":"828 F. Supp. 384","date":"1993-03-10","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/8719518\/beardsley-v-isom\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. MEMORANDUM OPINION .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"District Court, E.D. Virginia"}}}},{"id":376577,"structure_id":53546,"section_number":"65.2-301.1","catch_line":"Public safety officers","url":"\/65.2-301.1\/","token":"65.2\/3\/65.2-301.1","metadata":{"court_decisions":{"0":{"name":"Shannon Conner v. City of Danville","case_number":"1486184","citation":"826 S.E.2d 337","date":"2019-04-23","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/4612367\/shannon-conner-v-city-of-danville\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"COA<\/abbr>"},"1":{"name":" .\u202f.\u202f. Cary O'Donoghue v. United Continental Holdings, Inc. and .\u202f.\u202f. ","case_number":"1149184","citation":"824 S.E.2d 519","date":"2019-03-26","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/4603610\/cary-odonoghue-v-united-continental-holdings-inc-and-united-airlines\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"COA<\/abbr>"}}}},{"id":376578,"structure_id":53546,"section_number":"65.2-301.2","catch_line":"Employee classification; disaster; personal protective equipment not considered","url":"\/65.2-301.2\/","token":"65.2\/3\/65.2-301.2","metadata":false},{"id":376580,"structure_id":53546,"section_number":"65.2-302","catch_line":"Statutory employer","url":"\/65.2-302\/","token":"65.2\/3\/65.2-302","metadata":{"court_decisions":{"0":{"name":"Katrina Robertson v. United States","case_number":"24-1508","citation":null,"date":"2025-07-22","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/10639789\/katrina-robertson-v-united-states\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1508 Doc: 48 Filed: 07\/22\/2025 Pg: 1 of 11 .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit"},"1":{"name":"Jeffreys v. The Uninsured Employer's Fund","case_number":"Record 171467","citation":"823 S.E.2d 476","date":"2019-02-14","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/4590583\/jeffreys-v-the-uninsured-employers-fund\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. OPINION BY JUSTICE D. ARTHUR KELSEY .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"2":{"name":"Rodriguez v. Leesburg Business Park","case_number":"122029","citation":null,"date":"2014-02-27","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/2654948\/rodriguez-v-leesburg-business-park\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. Present: All the Justices .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"3":{"name":"Moore v. Virginia International Terminals","case_number":"101408","citation":null,"date":"2012-01-13","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1057948\/moore-v-virginia-international-terminals\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. PRESENT: All the Justices .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"4":{"name":"Rodriguez v. Leesburg Business Park","case_number":"122029","citation":null,"date":"2014-02-27","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/2670492\/rodriguez-v-leesburg-business-park\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. Present: All the Justices .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"5":{"name":"James Demetres v. East West Construction, Inc.","case_number":"14-1180","citation":"776 F.3d 271","date":"2015-01-15","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/2770374\/james-demetres-v-east-west-construction-inc\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. Affirmed by published opinion. Judge GREGORY wrote the opinion, in which Judge NIEMEYER and Senior .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit"},"6":{"name":"MARK FIVE CONST. v. Castle Contractors","case_number":"Record 061304.","citation":"645 S.E.2d 475","date":"2007-06-08","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1058631\/mark-five-const-v-castle-contractors\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 645 S.E.2d 475 (2007) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"7":{"name":"Turf Care, Inc. v. Henson","case_number":"1810072","citation":"657 S.E.2d 787","date":"2008-03-04","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1062844\/turf-care-inc-v-henson\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 657 S.E.2d 787 (2008) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"COA<\/abbr>"},"8":{"name":" .\u202f.\u202f. Uninsured Employer's Fund v. Monroe Henson, Jr., Windsor .\u202f.\u202f. ","case_number":"1827072","citation":null,"date":"2008-03-04","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1062842\/uninsured-employers-fund-v-monroe-henson-jr-windso\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"COA<\/abbr>"},"9":{"name":"Princess Anne Builders, Inc. v. Faucette","case_number":"0872011","citation":"554 S.E.2d 113","date":"2001-11-06","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1064879\/princess-anne-builders-inc-v-faucette\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 554 S.E.2d 113 (2001) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"COA<\/abbr>"}}}},{"id":376581,"structure_id":53546,"section_number":"65.2-303","catch_line":"Recovery from subcontractor; proceedings against owner or contractor","url":"\/65.2-303\/","token":"65.2\/3\/65.2-303","metadata":{"court_decisions":{"0":{"name":"MARK FIVE CONST. v. Castle Contractors","case_number":"Record 061304.","citation":"645 S.E.2d 475","date":"2007-06-08","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1058631\/mark-five-const-v-castle-contractors\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 645 S.E.2d 475 (2007) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"1":{"name":"Sites Const. Co., Inc. v. Harbeson","case_number":"Record Nos. 1866-92-4, 1867-92-4 and 1868-92-4","citation":"434 S.E.2d 1","date":"1993-08-03","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1219942\/sites-const-co-inc-v-harbeson\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 434 S.E.2d 1 (1993) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"COA<\/abbr>"},"2":{"name":"States Roofing Corp. v. Bush Construction Corp.","case_number":"Record No. 2062-91-1","citation":"426 S.E.2d 124","date":"1993-01-19","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1307540\/states-roofing-corp-v-bush-construction-corp\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 426 S.E.2d 124 (1993) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"COA<\/abbr>"}}}},{"id":376582,"structure_id":53546,"section_number":"65.2-304","catch_line":"Indemnity of principal from subcontractor","url":"\/65.2-304\/","token":"65.2\/3\/65.2-304","metadata":false},{"id":376583,"structure_id":53546,"section_number":"65.2-305","catch_line":"Voluntary subjection to provisions of title; effect of taking out insurance or qualifying as self-insurer","url":"\/65.2-305\/","token":"65.2\/3\/65.2-305","metadata":{"court_decisions":{"0":{"name":"Whitlock v. Whitlock Mechanical\/Check Services, Inc.","case_number":"3072963","citation":"489 S.E.2d 687","date":"1997-09-02","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1067309\/whitlock-v-whitlock-mechanicalcheck-services-inc\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 489 S.E.2d 687 (1997) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"COA<\/abbr>"},"1":{"name":" .\u202f.\u202f. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc. v. Courtaulds Performance .\u202f.\u202f. ","case_number":"Record 022244","citation":"580 S.E.2d 812","date":"2003-06-06","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1059200\/yellow-freight-systems-inc-v-courtaulds-performance-films-inc\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 580 S.E.2d 812 (2003) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"}}}},{"id":376584,"structure_id":53546,"section_number":"65.2-306","catch_line":"When compensation not allowed for injury or death; burden of proof","url":"\/65.2-306\/","token":"65.2\/3\/65.2-306","metadata":false},{"id":376585,"structure_id":53546,"section_number":"65.2-307","catch_line":"Employee's rights under Act exclude all others; exception","url":"\/65.2-307\/","token":"65.2\/3\/65.2-307","metadata":{"court_decisions":{"0":{"name":"Giordano v. McBar Industries, Inc.","case_number":"111771","citation":null,"date":"2012-06-07","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1057872\/giordano-v-mcbar-industries-inc\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. PRESENT: All the Justices .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"1":{"name":"James Demetres v. East West Construction, Inc.","case_number":"14-1180","citation":"776 F.3d 271","date":"2015-01-15","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/2770374\/james-demetres-v-east-west-construction-inc\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. Affirmed by published opinion. Judge GREGORY wrote the opinion, in which Judge NIEMEYER and Senior .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit"},"2":{"name":"Lopez v. Intercept Youth Services, Inc.","case_number":"191545","citation":null,"date":"2021-08-05","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/4905465\/lopez-v-intercept-youth-services-inc\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. PRESENT: All the Justices .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"3":{"name":"Butler v. SOUTHERN STATES CO-OP., INC.","case_number":"Record 050022.","citation":"620 S.E.2d 768","date":"2005-11-04","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1058908\/butler-v-southern-states-co-op-inc\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 620 S.E.2d 768 (2005) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"4":{"name":"David White Crane Service v. Howell","case_number":"100981","citation":"714 S.E.2d 572","date":"2011-09-16","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1058001\/david-white-crane-service-v-howell\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 714 S.E.2d 572 (2011) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"5":{"name":"Napper v. ABM JANITORIAL SERVICES","case_number":"111300","citation":"726 S.E.2d 313","date":"2012-06-07","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1057861\/napper-v-abm-janitorial-services\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 726 S.E.2d 313 (2012) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"6":{"name":"Rodriguez v. Leesburg Business Park","case_number":"122029","citation":null,"date":"2014-02-27","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/2654948\/rodriguez-v-leesburg-business-park\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. Present: All the Justices .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"7":{"name":"Kohn v. Marquis","case_number":"131162","citation":null,"date":"2014-09-12","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/2732505\/kohn-v-marquis\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. PRESENT: All the Justices .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"8":{"name":"Gibbs v. Newport News Shipbuildng & Drydock Co.","case_number":"111870","citation":null,"date":"2012-11-01","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1057814\/gibbs-v-newport-news-shipbuildng-drydock-co\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. PRESENT: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Millette, Mims, McClanahan, and .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"9":{"name":"Rodriguez v. Leesburg Business Park","case_number":"122029","citation":null,"date":"2014-02-27","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/2670492\/rodriguez-v-leesburg-business-park\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. Present: All the Justices .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"}}}},{"id":376586,"structure_id":53546,"section_number":"65.2-308","catch_line":"Discharge of employee for exercising rights prohibited; civil action; relief","url":"\/65.2-308\/","token":"65.2\/3\/65.2-308","metadata":false},{"id":376588,"structure_id":53546,"section_number":"65.2-309","catch_line":"Lien against settlement proceeds or verdict in third party suit; subrogation of employer to employee's rights against third parties; evidence; recovery; compromise","url":"\/65.2-309\/","token":"65.2\/3\/65.2-309","metadata":{"court_decisions":{"0":{"name":" .\u202f.\u202f. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Allstate Insurance .\u202f.\u202f. ","case_number":"211048","citation":null,"date":"2022-12-08","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/9328459\/hartford-underwriters-insurance-co-v-allstate-insurance-co\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. PRESENT: All the Justices .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"1":{"name":" .\u202f.\u202f. Naa Lamiley Williams v. Capital Hospice and Companion .\u202f.\u202f. ","case_number":"0947154","citation":"66 Va. App. 161","date":"2016-03-29","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/3189460\/naa-lamiley-williams-v-capital-hospice-and-companion-property-casualty\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. HUMPHREYS, Judge. .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"COA<\/abbr>"},"2":{"name":"Napper v. ABM JANITORIAL SERVICES","case_number":"111300","citation":"726 S.E.2d 313","date":"2012-06-07","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1057861\/napper-v-abm-janitorial-services\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 726 S.E.2d 313 (2012) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"3":{"name":"United Airlines, Inc. v. Hayes","case_number":"2054104","citation":"708 S.E.2d 418","date":"2011-05-10","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1061941\/united-airlines-inc-v-hayes\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 708 S.E.2d 418 (2011) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"COA<\/abbr>"},"4":{"name":" .\u202f.\u202f. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc. v. Courtaulds Performance .\u202f.\u202f. ","case_number":"Record 022244","citation":"580 S.E.2d 812","date":"2003-06-06","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1059200\/yellow-freight-systems-inc-v-courtaulds-performance-films-inc\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 580 S.E.2d 812 (2003) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"5":{"name":"Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Fisher","case_number":"Record 010350","citation":"557 S.E.2d 209","date":"2002-01-11","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1059388\/liberty-mutual-insurance-v-fisher\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 557 S.E.2d 209 (2002) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"6":{"name":"Henry's Wrecker Service Co. v. Smoot","case_number":"0847004","citation":"545 S.E.2d 551","date":"2001-05-01","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1065123\/henrys-wrecker-service-co-v-smoot\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 545 S.E.2d 551 (2001) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"COA<\/abbr>"},"7":{"name":"Jeneary v. Commonwealth","case_number":"Record 002550","citation":"551 S.E.2d 321","date":"2001-09-14","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1059444\/jeneary-v-commonwealth\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 551 S.E.2d 321 (2001) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"8":{"name":"Michigan Mutual Insurance v. Smoot","case_number":"CIV.A.00-1026-A","citation":"129 F. Supp. 2d 912","date":"2000-12-22","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/2471490\/michigan-mutual-insurance-v-smoot\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 129 F.Supp.2d 912 (2000) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"District Court, E.D. Virginia"},"9":{"name":"Michigan Mutual Insurance v. Smoot","case_number":"Civ.A. 00-1026-A","citation":"128 F. Supp. 2d 917","date":"2000-12-22","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/2298331\/michigan-mutual-insurance-v-smoot\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 128 F.Supp.2d 917 (2000) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"District Court, E.D. Virginia"}}}},{"id":376587,"structure_id":53546,"section_number":"65.2-309.1","catch_line":"Creation of lien and subrogation of employer to employee's rights to recover uninsured or underinsured motorist benefits pursuant to insurance coverage carried by and at the expense of employer","url":"\/65.2-309.1\/","token":"65.2\/3\/65.2-309.1","metadata":false},{"id":376589,"structure_id":53546,"section_number":"65.2-310","catch_line":"Protection of employer when employee sues third party","url":"\/65.2-310\/","token":"65.2\/3\/65.2-310","metadata":{"court_decisions":{"0":{"name":" .\u202f.\u202f. Naa Lamiley Williams v. Capital Hospice and Companion .\u202f.\u202f. ","case_number":"0947154","citation":"66 Va. App. 161","date":"2016-03-29","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/3189460\/naa-lamiley-williams-v-capital-hospice-and-companion-property-casualty\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. HUMPHREYS, Judge. .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"COA<\/abbr>"},"1":{"name":" .\u202f.\u202f. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc. v. Courtaulds Performance .\u202f.\u202f. ","case_number":"Record 022244","citation":"580 S.E.2d 812","date":"2003-06-06","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1059200\/yellow-freight-systems-inc-v-courtaulds-performance-films-inc\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 580 S.E.2d 812 (2003) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"2":{"name":"Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Fisher","case_number":"Record 010350","citation":"557 S.E.2d 209","date":"2002-01-11","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1059388\/liberty-mutual-insurance-v-fisher\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 557 S.E.2d 209 (2002) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"3":{"name":" .\u202f.\u202f. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Allstate Insurance .\u202f.\u202f. ","case_number":"211048","citation":null,"date":"2022-12-08","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/9328459\/hartford-underwriters-insurance-co-v-allstate-insurance-co\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. PRESENT: All the Justices .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"4":{"name":"Hawkins v. COM.\/SOUTHSIDE VA. TRAINING","case_number":"Record 971154","citation":"497 S.E.2d 839","date":"1998-02-27","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1059941\/hawkins-v-comsouthside-va-training\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 497 S.E.2d 839 (1998) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"5":{"name":"Michigan Mutual Insurance v. Smoot","case_number":"CIV.A.00-1026-A","citation":"129 F. Supp. 2d 912","date":"2000-12-22","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/2471490\/michigan-mutual-insurance-v-smoot\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 129 F.Supp.2d 912 (2000) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"District Court, E.D. Virginia"},"6":{"name":"Overhead Door Co. of Norfolk v. Lewis","case_number":"0597982","citation":"509 S.E.2d 535","date":"1999-01-26","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1066521\/overhead-door-co-of-norfolk-v-lewis\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 509 S.E.2d 535 (1999) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"COA<\/abbr>"},"7":{"name":"Michigan Mutual Insurance v. Smoot","case_number":"Civ.A. 00-1026-A","citation":"128 F. Supp. 2d 917","date":"2000-12-22","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/2298331\/michigan-mutual-insurance-v-smoot\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 128 F.Supp.2d 917 (2000) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"District Court, E.D. Virginia"},"8":{"name":"Michigan Mutual Insurance v. Smoot","case_number":"CIV. A. 00-1026-A","citation":"149 F. Supp. 2d 229","date":"2001-06-19","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/2573660\/michigan-mutual-insurance-v-smoot\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 149 F.Supp.2d 229 (2001) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"District Court, E.D. Virginia"},"9":{"name":"Morad Eghbal v. Boston Coach Corporation","case_number":"1128964","citation":"23 Va. App. 634","date":"1996-12-17","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1067683\/morad-eghbal-v-boston-coach-corporation\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. WILLIS, Judge. .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"COA<\/abbr>"}}}},{"id":376590,"structure_id":53546,"section_number":"65.2-311","catch_line":"Expenses and attorney's fees in action under \u00a7 65.2-309 or \u00a7 65.2-310","url":"\/65.2-311\/","token":"65.2\/3\/65.2-311","metadata":false},{"id":376591,"structure_id":53546,"section_number":"65.2-312","catch_line":"False statements, representations, etc., in connection with an award; penalties","url":"\/65.2-312\/","token":"65.2\/3\/65.2-312","metadata":{"court_decisions":""}},{"id":376592,"structure_id":53546,"section_number":"65.2-313","catch_line":"Method of determining employer's offset in event of recovery under \u00a7 65.2-309 or \u00a7 65.2-310","url":"\/65.2-313\/","token":"65.2\/3\/65.2-313","metadata":{"court_decisions":{"0":{"name":" .\u202f.\u202f. Naa Lamiley Williams v. Capital Hospice and Companion .\u202f.\u202f. ","case_number":"0947154","citation":"66 Va. App. 161","date":"2016-03-29","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/3189460\/naa-lamiley-williams-v-capital-hospice-and-companion-property-casualty\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. HUMPHREYS, Judge. .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"COA<\/abbr>"},"1":{"name":"Willie Carl Emberton, Sr. v. White Supply & Glass Company","case_number":"2995033","citation":"43 Va. App. 452","date":"2004-07-06","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1063768\/willie-carl-emberton-sr-v-white-supply-glass-company\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. ROSEMARIE ANNUNZIATA, Judge. .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"COA<\/abbr>"},"2":{"name":"McKnight v. Work Environment Associates & Travelers","case_number":"0482032","citation":"596 S.E.2d 573","date":"2004-06-01","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1063821\/mcknight-v-work-environment-associates-travelers\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 596 S.E.2d 573 (2004) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"COA<\/abbr>"},"3":{"name":"Hawkins v. COM.\/SOUTHSIDE VA. TRAINING","case_number":"Record 971154","citation":"497 S.E.2d 839","date":"1998-02-27","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1059941\/hawkins-v-comsouthside-va-training\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 497 S.E.2d 839 (1998) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"4":{"name":"James A. Robinson v. Trego Stone Corp & NiagaraFire","case_number":"0861972","citation":"26 Va. App. 97","date":"1997-11-25","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1067231\/james-a-robinson-v-trego-stone-corp-niagarafire\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. *99 .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"COA<\/abbr>"},"5":{"name":"Morad Eghbal v. Boston Coach Corporation","case_number":"1128964","citation":"23 Va. App. 634","date":"1996-12-17","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1067683\/morad-eghbal-v-boston-coach-corporation\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. WILLIS, Judge. .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"COA<\/abbr>"}}}}],"previous_section":{"id":376583,"structure_id":53546,"section_number":"65.2-305","catch_line":"Voluntary subjection to provisions of title; effect of taking out insurance or qualifying as self-insurer","url":"\/65.2-305\/","token":"65.2\/3\/65.2-305","metadata":{"court_decisions":{"0":{"name":"Whitlock v. Whitlock Mechanical\/Check Services, Inc.","case_number":"3072963","citation":"489 S.E.2d 687","date":"1997-09-02","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1067309\/whitlock-v-whitlock-mechanicalcheck-services-inc\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 489 S.E.2d 687 (1997) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"COA<\/abbr>"},"1":{"name":" .\u202f.\u202f. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc. v. Courtaulds Performance .\u202f.\u202f. ","case_number":"Record 022244","citation":"580 S.E.2d 812","date":"2003-06-06","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1059200\/yellow-freight-systems-inc-v-courtaulds-performance-films-inc\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 580 S.E.2d 812 (2003) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"}}}},"next_section":{"id":376585,"structure_id":53546,"section_number":"65.2-307","catch_line":"Employee's rights under Act exclude all others; exception","url":"\/65.2-307\/","token":"65.2\/3\/65.2-307","metadata":{"court_decisions":{"0":{"name":"Giordano v. McBar Industries, Inc.","case_number":"111771","citation":null,"date":"2012-06-07","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1057872\/giordano-v-mcbar-industries-inc\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. PRESENT: All the Justices .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"1":{"name":"James Demetres v. East West Construction, Inc.","case_number":"14-1180","citation":"776 F.3d 271","date":"2015-01-15","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/2770374\/james-demetres-v-east-west-construction-inc\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. Affirmed by published opinion. Judge GREGORY wrote the opinion, in which Judge NIEMEYER and Senior .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit"},"2":{"name":"Lopez v. Intercept Youth Services, Inc.","case_number":"191545","citation":null,"date":"2021-08-05","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/4905465\/lopez-v-intercept-youth-services-inc\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. PRESENT: All the Justices .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"3":{"name":"Butler v. SOUTHERN STATES CO-OP., INC.","case_number":"Record 050022.","citation":"620 S.E.2d 768","date":"2005-11-04","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1058908\/butler-v-southern-states-co-op-inc\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 620 S.E.2d 768 (2005) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"4":{"name":"David White Crane Service v. Howell","case_number":"100981","citation":"714 S.E.2d 572","date":"2011-09-16","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1058001\/david-white-crane-service-v-howell\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 714 S.E.2d 572 (2011) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"5":{"name":"Napper v. ABM JANITORIAL SERVICES","case_number":"111300","citation":"726 S.E.2d 313","date":"2012-06-07","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1057861\/napper-v-abm-janitorial-services\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. 726 S.E.2d 313 (2012) .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"6":{"name":"Rodriguez v. Leesburg Business Park","case_number":"122029","citation":null,"date":"2014-02-27","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/2654948\/rodriguez-v-leesburg-business-park\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. Present: All the Justices .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"7":{"name":"Kohn v. Marquis","case_number":"131162","citation":null,"date":"2014-09-12","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/2732505\/kohn-v-marquis\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. PRESENT: All the Justices .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"8":{"name":"Gibbs v. Newport News Shipbuildng & Drydock Co.","case_number":"111870","citation":null,"date":"2012-11-01","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/1057814\/gibbs-v-newport-news-shipbuildng-drydock-co\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. PRESENT: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Millette, Mims, McClanahan, and .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"},"9":{"name":"Rodriguez v. Leesburg Business Park","case_number":"122029","citation":null,"date":"2014-02-27","url":"https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/opinion\/2670492\/rodriguez-v-leesburg-business-park\/","abstract":" .\u202f.\u202f. Present: All the Justices .\u202f.\u202f. ","court_html":"SCV<\/abbr>"}}}},"metadata":false,"official_url":"https:\/\/law.lis.virginia.gov\/vacode\/65.2-306\/","history_text":"

The record of this law\u2019s original creation isn\u2019t available online. It has been modified 4 times. Those modifications are cataloged by \u201cThe Acts of Assembly,\u201d a state publication, by year and chapter. Those modifications that can be read on the General Assembly\u2019s website will be linked accordingly. Those modifications are as follows: in 1968, chapter 660; in 1991, chapters 166 and 355; in 1994, chapters 600<\/a> and 804<\/a>; in 2002, chapter 636<\/a>.<\/p>","references":[{"id":376577,"section_number":"65.2-301.1","catch_line":"Public safety officers","order_by":null,"url":"\/65.2-301.1\/"}],"refers_to":[{"id":350609,"section_number":"18.2-266","catch_line":"Driving motor vehicle, engine, etc., while intoxicated, etc","order_by":null,"url":"\/18.2-266\/"},{"id":368677,"section_number":"54.1-3400","catch_line":"Citation","order_by":null,"url":"\/54.1-3400\/"}],"permalink":{"id":1503321,"object_type":"law","relational_id":376584,"identifier":"65.2-306","token":"65.2\/3\/65.2-306","url":"\/65.2-306\/","edition_id":2,"permalink":0,"preferred":1},"url":"\/65.2-306\/","token":"65.2\/3\/65.2-306","dublin_core":{"Title":"When compensation not allowed for injury or death; burden of proof","Type":"Text","Format":"text\/html","Identifier":"\u00a7 65.2-306","Relation":"Code of Virginia"},"html":"\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

A.<\/span> No compensation shall be awarded to the employee or his dependents for an injury<\/span> or death caused by: <\/i><\/a><\/p><\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

1.<\/span> The employee’s willful misconduct or intentional self-inflicted injury<\/span>; <\/i><\/a><\/p><\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

2.<\/span> The employee’s attempt to injure another; <\/i><\/a><\/p><\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

3.<\/span> The employee’s intoxication; <\/i><\/a><\/p><\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

4.<\/span> The employee’s willful failure or refusal to use a safety appliance or perform a duty required by statute<\/span>; <\/i><\/a><\/p><\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

5.<\/span> The employee’s willful breach of any reasonable rule or regulation adopted by the employer<\/span> and brought, prior to the accident, to the knowledge of the employee; or <\/i><\/a><\/p><\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

6.<\/span> The employee’s use of a nonprescribed controlled substance identified as such in Chapter 34 (§ 54.1-3400<\/a> et seq.) of Title 54.1. <\/i><\/a><\/p><\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

B.<\/span> The person or entity asserting any of the defenses in this section shall have the burden of proof<\/span> with respect thereto. However, if the employer<\/span> 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<\/span> 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<\/a>, 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<\/span>, which presumption<\/span> 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<\/span>. The employee may overcome such a presumption<\/span> by clear and convincing evidence<\/span>. <\/i><\/a><\/p><\/section>","plain_text":" CODE OF VIRGINIA\n\nWHEN COMPENSATION NOT ALLOWED FOR INJURY OR DEATH; BURDEN OF PROOF (\u00a7 65.2-306)\n\nA. No compensation shall be awarded to the employee or his dependents for an\ninjury or death caused by:\n\n 1. The employee’s willful misconduct or intentional self-inflicted\n injury;\n\n 2. The employee’s attempt to injure another;\n\n 3. The employee’s intoxication;\n\n 4. The employee’s willful failure or refusal to use a safety appliance\n or perform a duty required by statute;\n\n 5. The employee’s willful breach of any reasonable rule or regulation\n adopted by the employer and brought, prior to the accident, to the knowledge\n of the employee; or\n\n 6. The employee’s use of a nonprescribed controlled substance identified\n as such in Chapter 34 (§ 54.1-3400 et seq.) of Title 54.1.\n\nB. The person or entity asserting any of the defenses in this section shall have\nthe burden of proof with respect thereto. However, if the employer raises as a\ndefense the employee’s intoxication or use of a nonprescribed controlled\nsubstance identified as such in Chapter 34 of Title 54.1, and there was at the\ntime of the injury an amount of alcohol or nonprescribed controlled substance in\nthe bodily fluids of the employee which (i) is equal to or greater than the\nstandard set forth in § 18.2-266, or (ii) in the case of use of a\nnonprescribed controlled substance, yields a positive test result from a\nSubstance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) certified\nlaboratory, there shall be a rebuttable presumption, which presumption shall not\nbe available if the employee dies as a result of his injuries, that the employee\nwas intoxicated due to the consumption of alcohol or using a nonprescribed\ncontrolled substance at the time of his injury. The employee may overcome such a\npresumption by clear and convincing evidence.\n\nHISTORY: Code 1950, \u00a7 65-35; 1968, c. 660, \u00a7 65.1-38; 1991, cc. 166, 355;\n1994, cc. 600, 804; 2002, c. 636.","edition":{"id":2,"name":"2026","slug":"2026","date_created":"2026-07-16 18:40:23","date_modified":"2026-08-02 15:14:36","current":1,"order_by":2,"last_import":"2026-08-02 12:37:30"}}