Present: All the Justices
PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY
SERVICE AUTHORITY, ET AL.
OPINION BY JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR.
v. Record No. 971519 September 18, 1998
LORRAINE HARPER
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
We consider whether an employee's false statement on an
employment application, that she had not been convicted of a
felony, bars her receipt of workers' compensation benefits.
Lorraine M. Harper pled guilty to the felonies of insurance
fraud and criminal conspiracy in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
on June 5, 1992. On July 30, 1993, she completed an application
for employment with the Prince William County Service Authority.
The employment application contained the following question: "Have
you ever been convicted of a law violation, including moving
traffic violations but excluding offenses committed before your
eighteenth birthday which were finally adjudicated in a Juvenile
Court or under a Youth Offender Law? You may omit traffic
violations for which you paid $30.00 or less." Harper responded,
"no" when she answered this question. The employment application
also contained the following certification: "I hereby certify that
this application is a complete record and that all entries given
are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I understand
that any attempt to practice deception or fraud in this application
is grounds for disqualification or dismissal." Harper concealed
her felony convictions when she completed the employment
application.
Harper, who was hired as a wastewater treatment plant operator
trainee with the Prince William County Service Authority, sustained
injuries to her left wrist and coccyx while performing her duties
on June 14, 1994. Harper and the Authority executed agreements
providing for the payment of disability benefits for certain time
she missed from work.
In February 1995, Harper filed an application for benefits
based upon a change in condition with the Workers' Compensation
Commission (Commission), seeking disability benefits for various
periods from January 1995 through July 1995. During the course of
that proceeding, the Authority learned that Harper had failed to
disclose her felony convictions.
At a hearing before a deputy commissioner, Sherry Boyce,
personnel director for the Authority, testified that the Authority
does not automatically disqualify employment applicants who have
felony convictions, but that each applicant with a felony
conviction is considered on "a case-by-case basis." Boyce
testified that the Authority would not have hired Harper had she
disclosed her felony convictions because of the nature and recent
date of the convictions.
2
Harper resigned from her employment with the Authority before
it became aware of her felony convictions. Boyce testified that
had Harper been employed at the time the Authority learned of her
misrepresentations, it would have terminated her employment.
The Authority asserted before the deputy commissioner that
Harper is barred from receiving workers' compensation benefits
because of her false representations. The deputy commissioner,
rejecting the Authority's assertion, concluded that Harper's
"felony conviction[s] would not have automatically resulted in the
[Authority's] rejection of her employment application. The
falsehood itself did not contribute to the nature of her injury,
which would prevent benefits as in those cases where a claimant
lied about her physical condition." The deputy commissioner
entered an award in favor of Harper against the Authority.
The Authority appealed the deputy commissioner's determination
to the Commission which also rejected the Authority's contention.
The Authority appealed the Commission's award to the Court of
Appeals, which affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that the
evidence of record failed to demonstrate that "the
misrepresentation, that Harper had not committed a crime, was
causally related to Harper's injury." Prince William County Serv.
Auth. v. Harper, 25 Va. App. 166, 170, 487 S.E.2d 246, 248 (1997).
The Authority appeals.
3
Relying upon Marval Poultry Co. v. Johnson, 224 Va. 597, 299
S.E.2d 343 (1983), the Authority argues that since Harper obtained
employment through fraud or material misrepresentation, she is
barred from receiving workers' compensation benefits because there
is no valid contract of hire and she may not benefit from her
fraudulent conduct. Continuing, the Authority asserts that a
causal relationship exists between Harper's misrepresentation and
her work-related injury because had she revealed her felony
convictions, she would not have been hired and the employer-
employee relationship would not have existed. We find no merit in
the Authority's contentions.
In Falls Church Constr. Co. v. Laidler, 254 Va. 474, 477-78,
493 S.E.2d 521, 523 (1997), we stated the following principles
which are pertinent here:
"An employee's false representation in an employment
application will bar a later claim for workers'
compensation benefits if the employer proves that 1) the
employee intentionally made a material false
representation; 2) the employer relied on that
misrepresentation; 3) the employer's reliance resulted in
the consequent injury; and 4) there is a causal
relationship between the injury in question and the
misrepresentation."
Applying these principles, we hold that Harper is not barred
from receiving workers' compensation benefits because the Authority
failed to adduce evidence which established a causal relationship
between her work-related injury and her misrepresentation of her
criminal record. Boyce's testimony that the Authority would not
4
have hired Harper had it been aware of her felony convictions is
not sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a causal
relationship between Harper's work-related injury and her
misrepresentation.
We reject the Authority's contention that our decision in
Marval bars Harper's receipt of workers' compensation benefits. In
Marval, we considered whether an employee was entitled to workers'
compensation benefits after the employee was discharged by his
employer for dishonesty. As we recently explained, "[o]ur holding
in Marval did not address issues of reliance or causation. Rather,
we held only that the justified termination of an employee for
dishonesty barred his later claim for benefits under a change in
condition application." Laidler, 254 Va. at 478, 493 S.E.2d at
523. Hence, Marval is inapposite to this case in which the issue
of causation is dispositive.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Court of
Appeals properly affirmed the Commission's decision. See Code
§ 65.2-706. Therefore, we will affirm the judgment of the Court of
Appeals.
Affirmed.
5