encourage employers to weigh the economic costs of compliance with safety regulations and concerns against the costs of worker’s compensation insurance. In essence, employers would chose the least expensive course of conduct, even if that were to be the intentional injury of an employee. We believe it is good policy for an employer to initiate a worker’s claim for quick and needed assistance. But, such an initiative should not be utilized as a tactic for invoking the exclusivity provisions of the Act and barring the worker from a tort claim. {17} Therefore, we hold that Worker’s receipt of compensation under the Act does not bar his tort claim against Employer for damages caused by Employer’s intentional or willful conduct. Accord Gagnard v. Baldridge, 612 So.2d 732, 736 (La.1993) (<HOLDING>); Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330, 407 S.E.2d
holding that when an employee suffers an injury from an unexplained fall while the employee is on the job and performing the duties of his employment that injury is eligible for compensation under the workers compensation act holding injured employee who asked his employer for medical assistance and employer refused and employee then went to physician of his own choice employee could recover medical benefits holding that punitive damages may be imposed against employer for tortious conduct of employee holding that when an employee is injured by his employers tortious conduct his employer owes him damages and compensation under the act holding that when an employer intentionally engages in misconduct knowing it is substantially certain to cause serious injury or death to employees and an employee is injured or killed by that misconduct the employee may pursue a civil action against his employer and also pursue benefits under the workers compensation act