Which option is NOT an exception to workers' compensation's exclusive remedy?

The option that is identified as not being an exception to the exclusive remedy of workers' compensation is indeed correct. Under the concept of workers' compensation, employees generally relinquish their right to sue their employer for workplace injuries in exchange for guaranteed benefits. However, several exceptions to this rule exist.

An injury caused by worker fatigue does not typically constitute an exception to this exclusive remedy because it doesn't usually point to an actionable fault of the employer. Fatigue is often considered an inherent risk of the job that employees must manage. Unlike specific breaches of duty owed by the employer or circumstances involving a third party, fatigue-related injuries generally fall into the ordinary course of employment, thereby limiting the ability to pursue further legal action against the employer.

In contrast, the other listed options relate to circumstances that undermine the exclusive remedy provision. For example, when an employer fails to provide the mandated benefits, employees might pursue additional claims. Third-party-over actions apply when a worker can sue someone other than their employer for negligence causing injury. The fellow worker doctrine, while a little more complex, generally addresses situations where a co-worker's actions lead to injury, allowing for potential claims depending on the situation.

Understanding these distinctions helps clarify the landscape of workers' compensation law and the specific parameters of