Worker compensation death benefits and death caused by religiously motivated blood transfusion refusal

[Volokh, Eugene]

	Floyd Wilcut drove a truck for Innovative Warehousing.  He was
involved in an on-the-job auto accident; he needed a transfusion, but
refused to accept it, and as a result died.

	The question is whether the employer is legally liable for death
benefits, given a statutory provision that "No compensation shall be
payable ... if ans insofar as the death or disability may be caused,
continued or aggravated by any unreasonable refusal to submit to any
medical ... treatment."  The Missouri Court of Appeals said, by a 2-1
vote, that a religiously motivated refusal would categorically not count
as "unreasonable."  Wilcut v. Innovative Warehousing, 2008 WL 123807
(Mo. Ct. App. Jan. 15).  The dissenter argues that this
unconstitutionally entangles the state with religious doctrine.

	My question:  Is it at all troublesome that the employer is
having to pay a considerable amount of money because of a person's
religious choice?  Was Sherbert correct to just casually reject the
"subsidizing another's religion" argument?  Or were TWA v. Hardison and
Estate of Thornton v. Caldor right to suggest that imposing too great a
burden on an employer because of an employee's religious views would
violate the Establishment Clause?

	Eugene