{"formats":[{"name":"JSON","format":"json","url":"\/downloads\/2026\/code-json\/65.2-307.json"},{"name":"Plain Text","format":"text","url":"\/downloads\/2026\/code-text\/65.2-307.txt"},{"name":"XML","format":"xml","url":"\/downloads\/2026\/code-xml\/65.2-307.xml"},{"name":"HTML","format":"html","url":"\/downloads\/2026\/code-html\/65.2-307.html"}],"law_id":376585,"edition_id":2,"section_id":376585,"structure_id":53546,"section_number":"65.2-307","catch_line":"Employee’s rights under Act exclude all others; exception","history":"Code 1950, \u00a7 65-37; 1968, c. 660, \u00a7 65.1-40; 1991, c. 355; 1999, c. 842; 2015, cc. 606, 624.","full_text":"A\n\nThe rights and remedies herein granted to an employee when his employer and he have accepted the provisions of this title respectively to pay and accept compensation on account of injury or death by accident shall exclude all other rights and remedies of such employee, his personal representative, parents, dependents, or next of kin, at common law or otherwise, on account of such injury, loss of service, or death.\n\nB\n\nIf a court of the Commonwealth makes a finding in a final unappealed order based on an evidentiary hearing or a factual stipulation of the parties and participants thereto that the cause of action relating to an accident, injury, disease, or death is barred by this section, that finding shall be res judicata between those same parties and estop them and any employer, uninsured employer’s fund, guarantee fund, responsible entities, or statutory employer from arguing before the Commission that the accident, injury, disease, or death did not arise out of and in the course of such employee’s employment. If the Commission or a court on appeal from the Commission makes a finding in a final unappealed order based on an evidentiary hearing, hearing on the record, or a factual stipulation of the parties that the claims relating to an accident, injury, disease, or death did not arise out of or in the course of such employee’s employment, then that finding shall be res judicata and estop those same parties from arguing before a court of the Commonwealth that the accident is barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Act. However, except in the case of a self-insured employer or business entity closely related to a party to the court proceeding, in order for the court finding to be res judicata as to a non-party, notice shall be provided in the same manner as allowed in subsection F of § 38.2-2206 or § 8.01-288 to any employer, uninsured employer’s fund, guarantee fund, responsible entities, or statutory employer sought to be bound. In addition, any such entities so notified shall be given the same opportunity to be heard in that court proceeding as a party to the same, but limited to the issue of whether the accident, injury, disease, or death arose out of and in the course of the employee’s employment. Failure to provide notice to any party to the court proceeding shall not affect the rights, privileges, or obligations of said parties thereto but shall affect only the applicability of this subsection and only as stated herein. Furthermore, the findings by either the Commission or the court under this subsection shall not prevent the parties and participants to those proceedings from raising or relying upon any and all other available defenses.\n\nC\n\nNotwithstanding this exclusion, nothing in the Act shall bar an employer from voluntarily agreeing to pay an employee compensation above and beyond those benefits provided for in the Act. Nothing herein, however, shall be deemed to affect or alter any existing right or remedy of the employer or employee under the Act.\n\n","order_by":null,"text":{"0":{"id":1406158,"text":"The rights and remedies herein granted to an employee when his employer and he have accepted the provisions of this title respectively to pay and accept compensation on account of injury or death by accident shall exclude all other rights and remedies of such employee, his personal representative, parents, dependents, or next of kin, at common law or otherwise, on account of such injury, loss of service, or death.","type":"section","prefixes":["A"],"prefix":"A","entire_prefix":"A","prefix_anchor":"A","level":1,"next_prefix":"B"},"1":{"id":1406159,"text":"If a court of the Commonwealth makes a finding in a final unappealed order based on an evidentiary hearing or a factual stipulation of the parties and participants thereto that the cause of action relating to an accident, injury, disease, or death is barred by this section, that finding shall be res judicata between those same parties and estop them and any employer, uninsured employer’s fund, guarantee fund, responsible entities, or statutory employer from arguing before the Commission that the accident, injury, disease, or death did not arise out of and in the course of such employee’s employment. If the Commission or a court on appeal from the Commission makes a finding in a final unappealed order based on an evidentiary hearing, hearing on the record, or a factual stipulation of the parties that the claims relating to an accident, injury, disease, or death did not arise out of or in the course of such employee’s employment, then that finding shall be res judicata and estop those same parties from arguing before a court of the Commonwealth that the accident is barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Act. However, except in the case of a self-insured employer or business entity closely related to a party to the court proceeding, in order for the court finding to be res judicata as to a non-party, notice shall be provided in the same manner as allowed in subsection F of § 38.2-2206 or § 8.01-288 to any employer, uninsured employer’s fund, guarantee fund, responsible entities, or statutory employer sought to be bound. In addition, any such entities so notified shall be given the same opportunity to be heard in that court proceeding as a party to the same, but limited to the issue of whether the accident, injury, disease, or death arose out of and in the course of the employee’s employment. Failure to provide notice to any party to the court proceeding shall not affect the rights, privileges, or obligations of said parties thereto but shall affect only the applicability of this subsection and only as stated herein. Furthermore, the findings by either the Commission or the court under this subsection shall not prevent the parties and participants to those proceedings from raising or relying upon any and all other available defenses.","type":"section","prefixes":["B"],"prefix":"B","entire_prefix":"B","prefix_anchor":"B","level":1,"prior_prefix":"A","next_prefix":"C"},"2":{"id":1406160,"text":"Notwithstanding this exclusion, nothing in the Act shall bar an employer from voluntarily agreeing to pay an employee compensation above and beyond those benefits provided for in the Act. Nothing herein, however, shall be deemed to affect or alter any existing right or remedy of the employer or employee under the Act.","type":"section","prefixes":["C"],"prefix":"C","entire_prefix":"C","prefix_anchor":"C","level":1,"prior_prefix":"B"}},"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":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},"next_section":{"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},"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>"}}},"official_url":"https:\/\/law.lis.virginia.gov\/vacode\/65.2-307\/","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, chapter 355; in 1999, chapter 842<\/a>; in 2015, chapters 606<\/a> and 624<\/a>.<\/p>","references":[{"id":373094,"section_number":"59.1-414","catch_line":"Application","order_by":null,"url":"\/59.1-414\/"}],"refers_to":[{"id":361792,"section_number":"38.2-2206","catch_line":"Uninsured motorist insurance coverage","order_by":null,"url":"\/38.2-2206\/"},{"id":377103,"section_number":"8.01-288","catch_line":"Process received in time good though neither served nor accepted","order_by":null,"url":"\/8.01-288\/"}],"permalink":{"id":1503325,"object_type":"law","relational_id":376585,"identifier":"65.2-307","token":"65.2\/3\/65.2-307","url":"\/65.2-307\/","edition_id":2,"permalink":0,"preferred":1},"url":"\/65.2-307\/","token":"65.2\/3\/65.2-307","dublin_core":{"Title":"Employee’s rights under Act exclude all others; exception","Type":"Text","Format":"text\/html","Identifier":"\u00a7 65.2-307","Relation":"Code of Virginia"},"html":"\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

A.<\/span> The rights and remedies herein granted to an employee when his employer<\/span> and he have accepted the provisions of this title respectively to pay and accept compensation on account of injury<\/span> or death by accident shall exclude all other rights and remedies of such employee, his personal representative, parents, dependents, or next of kin, at common law<\/span> or otherwise, on account of such injury<\/span>, loss of service, or death. <\/i><\/a><\/p><\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

B.<\/span> If a court<\/span> of the Commonwealth makes a finding<\/span> in a final unappealed order<\/span> based on an evidentiary hearing<\/span> or a factual stipulation<\/span> of the parties and participants thereto that the cause of action<\/span> relating to an accident, injury<\/span>, disease, or death is barred by this section, that finding<\/span> shall be res judicata between those same parties and estop them and any employer<\/span>, uninsured employer<\/span>’s fund, guarantee fund, responsible entities, or statutory employer<\/span> from arguing before the Commission<\/span> that the accident, injury<\/span>, disease, or death did not arise out of and in the course of such employee’s employment. If the Commission<\/span> or a court<\/span> on appeal<\/span> from the Commission<\/span> makes a finding<\/span> in a final unappealed order<\/span> based on an evidentiary hearing<\/span>, hearing<\/span> on the record, or a factual stipulation<\/span> of the parties that the claims relating to an accident, injury<\/span>, disease, or death did not arise out of or in the course of such employee’s employment, then that finding<\/span> shall be res judicata and estop those same parties from arguing before a court<\/span> of the Commonwealth that the accident is barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Act. However, except in the case of a self-insured employer<\/span> or business entity closely related to a party<\/span> to the court<\/span> proceeding, in order<\/span> for the court<\/span> finding<\/span> to be res judicata as to a non-party<\/span>, notice shall be provided in the same manner as allowed in subsection F of § 38.2-2206<\/a> or § 8.01-288<\/a> to any employer<\/span>, uninsured employer<\/span>’s fund, guarantee fund, responsible entities, or statutory employer<\/span> sought to be bound. In addition, any such entities so notified shall be given the same opportunity to be heard in that court<\/span> proceeding as a party<\/span> to the same, but limited to the issue<\/span> of whether the accident, injury<\/span>, disease, or death arose out of and in the course of the employee’s employment. Failure to provide notice to any party<\/span> to the court<\/span> proceeding shall not affect the rights, privileges<\/span>, or obligations of said parties thereto but shall affect only the applicability of this subsection and only as stated herein. Furthermore, the findings<\/span> by either the Commission<\/span> or the court<\/span> under this subsection shall not prevent the parties and participants to those proceedings from raising or relying upon any and all other available defenses. <\/i><\/a><\/p><\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

C.<\/span> Notwithstanding this exclusion, nothing in the Act shall bar an employer<\/span> from voluntarily agreeing to pay an employee compensation above and beyond those benefits provided for in the Act. Nothing herein, however, shall be deemed to affect or alter any existing right or remedy of the employer<\/span> or employee under the Act. <\/i><\/a><\/p><\/section>","plain_text":" CODE OF VIRGINIA\n\nEMPLOYEE’S RIGHTS UNDER ACT EXCLUDE ALL OTHERS; EXCEPTION (\u00a7 65.2-307)\n\nA. The rights and remedies herein granted to an employee when his employer and\nhe have accepted the provisions of this title respectively to pay and accept\ncompensation on account of injury or death by accident shall exclude all other\nrights and remedies of such employee, his personal representative, parents,\ndependents, or next of kin, at common law or otherwise, on account of such\ninjury, loss of service, or death.\n\nB. If a court of the Commonwealth makes a finding in a final unappealed order\nbased on an evidentiary hearing or a factual stipulation of the parties and\nparticipants thereto that the cause of action relating to an accident, injury,\ndisease, or death is barred by this section, that finding shall be res judicata\nbetween those same parties and estop them and any employer, uninsured\nemployer’s fund, guarantee fund, responsible entities, or statutory\nemployer from arguing before the Commission that the accident, injury, disease,\nor death did not arise out of and in the course of such employee’s\nemployment. If the Commission or a court on appeal from the Commission makes a\nfinding in a final unappealed order based on an evidentiary hearing, hearing on\nthe record, or a factual stipulation of the parties that the claims relating to\nan accident, injury, disease, or death did not arise out of or in the course of\nsuch employee’s employment, then that finding shall be res judicata and\nestop those same parties from arguing before a court of the Commonwealth that\nthe accident is barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Act. However, except\nin the case of a self-insured employer or business entity closely related to a\nparty to the court proceeding, in order for the court finding to be res judicata\nas to a non-party, notice shall be provided in the same manner as allowed in\nsubsection F of § 38.2-2206 or § 8.01-288 to any employer, uninsured\nemployer’s fund, guarantee fund, responsible entities, or statutory\nemployer sought to be bound. In addition, any such entities so notified shall be\ngiven the same opportunity to be heard in that court proceeding as a party to\nthe same, but limited to the issue of whether the accident, injury, disease, or\ndeath arose out of and in the course of the employee’s employment. Failure\nto provide notice to any party to the court proceeding shall not affect the\nrights, privileges, or obligations of said parties thereto but shall affect only\nthe applicability of this subsection and only as stated herein. Furthermore, the\nfindings by either the Commission or the court under this subsection shall not\nprevent the parties and participants to those proceedings from raising or\nrelying upon any and all other available defenses.\n\nC. Notwithstanding this exclusion, nothing in the Act shall bar an employer from\nvoluntarily agreeing to pay an employee compensation above and beyond those\nbenefits provided for in the Act. Nothing herein, however, shall be deemed to\naffect or alter any existing right or remedy of the employer or employee under\nthe Act.\n\nHISTORY: Code 1950, \u00a7 65-37; 1968, c. 660, \u00a7 65.1-40; 1991, c. 355; 1999, c.\n842; 2015, cc. 606, 624.","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"}}