Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
California's Worker's Compensation Act (WCA) provides an employee's exclusive remedy against his or her employer for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment. (Lab. Code, § 3600 et seq.; Wright v. State of California (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1218, 1229; Palestini v. General Dynamics Corp. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 80, 86.) An injured employee may also bring an action at law against any employer who fails to secure the payment of compensation. (Lab. Code, § 3706.)
To succeed on a claim under § 3600 of the Labor Code, the plaintiff must present admissible evidence of each of the following:
(Melendrez v. Ameron Internat. Corp. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 638-639; State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 643, 652.)
The term “employee” is defined broadly, and, ordinarily, “[a] person who renders service to another is presumed to be an ‘employee.’” (County of Los Angeles v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 30 Cal.3d 391, 396, 179 Cal.Rptr. 214, 637 P.2d 681.) “‘Employee’ means every person in the service of an employer under any appointment or contract of hire or apprenticeship, express or implied, oral or written, whether lawfully or unlawfully employed.” (Brassinga v. City of Mountain View (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 195, 214.) “[T]he reality of the situation, not the parties’ characterization of the relationship, controls the outcome.” (Brassinga v. City of Mountain View (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 195, 214.)
“The WCA instructs that its provisions are to be “liberally construed by the courts with the purpose of extending their benefits for the protection of persons injured in the course of their employment.” (Lab. Code, § 3202.) “Any reasonable doubt as to whether the act of the employee is contemplated by the employment should be resolved in favor of the employee in view of the policy of liberal construction of the workmen's compensation laws.” (Tingey v. Industrial Acc. Commission (1943) 22 Cal.2d 636, 641.) This rule of liberal construction applies even though a particular plaintiff might prefer to forgo a workers' compensation remedy in favor of a remedy at law; the courts construe the WCA “in favor of awarding work[ers'] compensation, not in permitting civil litigation.” (Arriaga v. County of Alameda (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1055, 1065, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 116, 892 P.2d 150.)
“Where the conditions of compensation set forth in § 3600 concur, the right to recover such compensation is... the sole and exclusive remedy of the employee or his or her dependents against the employer, and the fact that either the employee or the employer also occupied another or dual capacity prior to, or at the time of, the employee's industrial injury shall not permit the employee or his or her dependents to bring an action at law for damages against the employer.” (Lab. Code, § 3602(a).)
“[T]he legal theory supporting such exclusive remedy provisions is a presumed ‘compensation bargain,’ pursuant to which the employer assumes liability for industrial personal injury or death without regard to fault in exchange for limitations on the amount of that liability. The employee is afforded relatively swift and certain payment of benefits to cure or relieve the effects of industrial injury without having to prove fault but, in exchange, gives up the wider range of damages potentially available in tort. The function of the exclusive remedy provisions is to give efficacy to the theoretical ‘compensation bargain.’” (Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 16.)
However, the exclusive remedy provisions are not applicable under circumstances where the employer stepped out of its proper role. (Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 16.) The exclusivity provisions do not apply under circumstances “essentially defined as not stemming from a risk reasonably encompassed within the compensation bargain.” (Id.) Thus, “where [the] injury did not occur while the employee was performing service incidental to the employment and which would not be viewed as a risk of the employment” the exclusivity provisions do not apply. (Id.)
“Courts have also consistently held that injuries arising out of and in the course of the workers' compensation claims process fall within the scope of the exclusive remedy provisions because this process is tethered to a compensable injury. Indeed, every employee who suffers a workplace injury must go through the claims process in order to recover compensation.” (Charles J. Vacanti, M.D., Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (2001) 24 Cal.4th 800, 815 (Vacanti).) Thus, the Supreme Court has barred all claims based on “disputes over the delay or discontinuance of [workers' compensation] benefits.” (Marsh & McLennan, Inc. v. Superior Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1, 7 (Marsh); Stoddard v. Western Employers Ins. Co. (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 165, 168–169; Mottola v. R.L. Kautz & Co. (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 98, 109.)
Determining whether a claim is barred by the exclusivity provision of the Worker’s Compensation Act involves a three step analysis. First, “the trigger for workers' compensation exclusivity is a compensable injury,” (Vacanti, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 813.)
The second prong of the analysis is determining whether the alleged claims raised in the complaint are “collateral to or derivative” of the compensable injury; claims which are collateral to or derivative of the compensable injury are barred under the exclusivity clause. (Vacanti, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 813.)
Finally, in “adjudicating whether a claim falls within the workers' compensation system, all doubt should be resolved in favor of finding jurisdiction within the workers' compensation system.” (Mitchell v. Scott Wetzel Services, Inc. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1480; Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 879, 881; Gilford v. State Compensation Ins. Fund (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 828, 834.)
Exclusivity Provision of Californias Workers Compensation and Insurance Act As noted above, Defendants initially demur to Plaintiffs Complaint contending Plaintiffs Complaint is barred by the exclusivity provision of Californias Workers Compensation and Insurance Act. (a) Recitation of Applicable Law Concerning Exclusivity Provision The California Workers Compensation and Insurance Act (Lab.
KND DEVELOPMENT 53, LLC, D/B/A KINDRED HOSPITAL SOUTH BAY, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS INTACT INSURANCE GROUP USA, LLC D/B/A ONEBEACON, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
20STCV45622
Apr 29, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Workers Compensation Act (WCA) Exclusivity Doctrine Defendants argue that Kindreds claims are barred by the workers compensation exclusivity doctrine, which provides that where an exclusive remedy is provided by the Workers Compensation Act (WCA), recovery for those injuries is limited to the remedies therein. (See Cal. Labor Code § 3602.) The Workers Compensation Act is the exclusive remedy of the employee or his or her dependents against the employer. ( American Cargo Express, Inc. v.
GERALD LYNN BROUSSARD VS WHAT'S ON THIRD?. INC., ET AL.
20STCV45722
Nov 10, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff opposes the motion on the ground his claims are not barred by the preemptive force of the Workers’ Compensation Act.
EDGAR WILSON VS. MICHAEL ROBERTS CONSTRUCTION, INC.
C22-00842
Sep 01, 2022
Contra Costa County, CA
The California Workers Compensation Act (WCA) provides the exclusive remedy for employer negligence. The WCA provides a comprehensive statutory scheme designed to provide the sole and exclusive remedy for the employee for all injuries arising out of and in the course of employment. (Lab. Code §§ 3600(a), 3602(a); see also Lab.
ANGEL ARTEMIO VALDEZ FIGUEROA VS THREE D SERVICE COMPANY, INC., ET AL.
22STCV25537
Nov 28, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The FAC and the WCA therefore establish that Plaintiff was Defendants’ employee. The second element concerns the presence of workers’ compensation insurance. By law, the Department of Social Services is required to provide workers’ compensation coverage to In-Home Supportive Services (“IHSS”) providers.
PEDRO GONZALEZ, ET AL. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
19STCV08617
Nov 01, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Apio first argues that Plaintiff’s sixth and seventh causes of action are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers Compensation Act (“WCA”). Exclusivity Provisions of the WCA The underlying premise behind this statutorily created system of workers' compensation is the ‘compensation bargain.’ Pursuant to this presumed bargain, the employer assumes liability for industrial personal injury or death without regard to fault in exchange for limitations on the amount of that liability.
DOE 1 V. JACOB ROLDAN, ET AL.
19CV-0276
Oct 16, 2019
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Defendant contends Plaintiff’s claim is that he was injured while at work, meaning the exclusive remedy doctrine of the Workers Compensation Act bars his claims. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. The Workers Compensation Act (“WCA”) governs compensation to employees for injuries incurred in the course and scope of their employment. (See Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4; Cal. Labor Code, § 3201; Charles J. Vacanti, M.D., Inc. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund (2001) 24 Cal.4th 800, 810.)
ISIDORO AGUILAR VS CABLE MOORE INC
BC629184
Mar 08, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
The Workers' Compensation Act ("WCA") provides the sole and exclusive remedy for workplace injuries and the Worker's Compensation Appeals Board ("WCAB") has exclusive jurisdiction over worker's compensation claims. (Labor Code, §§ 3600(a), 3601, 3602(a), 5300.) It is well-settled that all claims for negligence brought by an employee against an employer are barred by the exclusivity provisions of California's workers compensation system. (E.g., Arendell v.
37-2022-00034546-CU-PO-CTL
37-2022-00034546-CU-PO-CTL
Mar 17, 2023
San Diego County, CA
Apio first argues that Plaintiff’s sixth and seventh causes of action are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers Compensation Act (“WCA”). Exclusivity Provisions of the WCA “The underlying premise behind this statutorily created system of workers' compensation is the “compensation bargain.” Pursuant to this presumed bargain, the employer assumes liability for industrial personal injury or death without regard to fault in exchange for limitations on the amount of that liability.
DOE 1 V. XXXXXXXXXXXX, ET AL.
19CV-0276
Dec 18, 2019
San Luis Obispo County, CA
ARGUMENTS Defendant, Essilor of America, Inc., (Essilor), filed this motion on January 2, 2024, to bifurcate the issue of whether all of Plaintiffs claims against it are barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers Compensation Act (WCA). The Court has discretion to try special defenses first. Essilor contends that Essilor Labs of America, operating as Elite Optical, is a subsidiary of Essilor, who funded the settlement of Plaintiffs worker's compensation claim. (Mot. 4:16-18.)
JOSEFA URIOSTEGUI VS AMERICAN IRON & METAL, ET AL.
19STCV17793
May 01, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Workers' Compensation Exclusivity (Arising from Defendant's MILs Nos. 2, 3) The following shall constitute the Court's tentative ruling on the Motion in Limine to Determine Workers Compensation Exclusivity.
CHRISTINE MENDIOLA VS. CRESTWOOD BEHAVIORAL HEALTH INC
34-2013-00147943-CU-WT-GDS
Apr 27, 2016
Sacramento County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
DISCUSSION The Workers Compensation Act (WCA) is codified at Labor Code §3600, et seq.
SHANNEL BROWN VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION
BC634076
May 23, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
The Workers' Compensation Act ("WCA") provides the sole and exclusive remedy for workplace injuries and the WCAB has exclusive jurisdiction over worker's compensation claims. (Labor Code, §§ 3600(a), 3601, 3602(a), 5300.) "The only point of concurrent jurisdiction of the two tribunals is jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction; jurisdiction once determined is exclusive, not concurrent." (La Jolla Beach & Tennis Club, Inc. v. Industrial Indemnity Co. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 27, 35.)
37-2022-00039482-CU-PO-CTL
37-2022-00039482-CU-PO-CTL
Sep 08, 2023
San Diego County, CA
Bonnan also demurs on the grounds that Plaintiffs Complaint is barred by the Workers Compensation Act. The Workers Compensation Act (WCA) governs compensation to employees for injuries incurred in the course and scope of their employment. (See Cal. Const., art. XIV, section 4; Cal. Labor Code, § 3201; Charles J. Vacanti, M.D., Inc. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund (2001) 24 Cal.4th 800, 810.)
EDNA FUENTES VS MELUSINE ENTERPRISES LLC, ET AL.
22STCV14037
Dec 02, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
As such, Plaintiff’s Complaint arise out of a workers compensation claim and allegations that she not been properly compensated under this claim. As a general rule, California’s Workers’ Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy for injuries sustained in the course of employment. (Lab. Code, § 3600, subd . (a); Torres v. Parkhouse Tire Service, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 995, 1001.)
MS. TAMARA HARRIS VS SO. CAL. PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP
20STCV23195
Dec 14, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
As such, Plaintiff’s Complaint arise out of a workers compensation claim and allegations that she not been properly compensated under this claim. As a general rule, California’s Workers’ Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy for injuries sustained in the course of employment. (Lab. Code, § 3600, subd . (a); Torres v. Parkhouse Tire Service, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 995, 1001.)
MS. TAMARA HARRIS VS SO. CAL. PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP
20STCV23195
Dec 14, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Insurance
Intellectual Property
The Workers Compensation Act (WCA) governs compensation to employees for injuries incurred in the course and scope of their employment. (See Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4; Cal. Labor Code, § 3201; Charles J. Vacanti, M.D., Inc. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund (2001) 24 Cal.4th 800, 810.) Compensation under the WCA is an employees exclusive remedy against an employer for injuries sustained out of and in the course of employment. (See Cal. Labor Code, §§ 3600(a), 3602(a).)
ADELA ESCAMILLA VS DONNA W. SCOTT
20STCV41487
Aug 24, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, Nationwide Guard Services (NGS), did not provide her with the proper workers compensation forms and did not address her complaints about the working conditions. II. ARGUMENTS Defendant argues that the complaint is barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Worker's Compensation Act (WCA). Plaintiff has applied with the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) to adjudicate her claim.
23CMCVC01574
Jan 18, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, Nationwide Guard Services (NGS), did not provide her with the proper workers compensation forms and did not address her complaints about the working conditions. II. ARGUMENTS Defendant argues that the complaint is barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Worker's Compensation Act (WCA). Plaintiff has applied with the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) to adjudicate her claim.
23CMCVC01574
Jan 04, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Workers Compensation Exclusivity Next, Employers argue that Plaintiffs Sixth and Seventh Causes of Action for Negligent and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress are precluded by Workers Compensation Exclusivity, and that Plaintiffs Fourth Cause of Action for Wrongful Death is precluded as derivative of those injuries. The Workers Compensation Act (WCA) governs compensation to employees for injuries incurred in the course and scope of their employment. (See Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4; Cal.
ESTATE OF GREGORY HUBBARD BY AND THROUGH CONSUELA HUBBARD, ET AL. VS GABRIEL SANCHEZ, ET AL.
22STCV04189
Aug 31, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Discussion Defendant moves for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication, on the ground that Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant at the time of the incident, and the Workers Compensation Act bars her claim. The Workers Compensation Act (WCA) governs compensation to employees for injuries incurred in the course and scope of their employment. (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4; Cal. Labor Code, § 3201; Charles J. Vacanti, M.D., Inc. v.
ANA ZUNIGA VS JULIA MCDONOUGH
20STCV39647
Apr 06, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
“It is by now well established that the [Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA)]’s exclusivity provisions preempt not only those causes of action premised on a compensable workplace injury, but also those causes of action premised on injuries collateral to or derivative of such an injury.” (King v. CompPartners, Inc. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 1039, 1051.)
CRIST, RICHARD V. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND
CU0001107
Mar 15, 2024
Nevada County, CA
The Defendant points out that it and In Town Living share the same Workers’ Compensation Insurance Policy. But, this fact does necessarily mean the exclusivity effect of the Workers’ Compensation Act applies. (Gigax v.
DAWN WOOD VS OLSON URBAN HOUSING LLC
BC676098
Nov 26, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
The Workers Compensation Act (WCA) governs compensation to employees for injuries incurred in the course and scope of their employment. (See Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4; Cal. Labor Code, § 3201; Charles J. Vacanti, M.D., Inc. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund (2001) 24 Cal.4th 800, 810.) Compensation under the WCA is an employees exclusive remedy against an employer for injuries sustained out of and in the course of employment. (See Cal. Labor Code, §§ 3600(a), 3602(a).)
MARINE MANDOYAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND CHARTER CITY ORGANIZED UNDER THE PROVISIONS SET FORTH IN THE CALIFORNIA CONS
21STCV36595
Mar 20, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Second Through Fifth Causes of Action Workers Compensation Exclusivity An employee injured during the course of employment is generally limited to remedies available under the Workers' Compensation Act. ( Jensen v. Amgen, Inc. (2003) 105 Cal. App. 4th 1322, 1326.)
ANNA MICHELLE HAGEVOORT VS CARDINAL HEALTH, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.
20STCV46790
Jun 13, 2023
day s
Los Angeles County, CA
WORKERS COMPENSATION EXCLUSIVITY The Workers Compensation Act provides the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board with exclusive jurisdiction over disputes regarding an employee's right to compensation. (Lab.C. §5300(a).) Employers are liable under the Act for any injury “arising out of and in the course of employment,” without regard to negligence on the employer's part. (Lab.C. §3600((a).)
ZUNIGA VS SAFEWAY INC
HG20062742
Nov 18, 2021
Alameda County, CA
The California Workers Compensation Act (WCA) provides the exclusive remedy for employer negligence. The WCA provides a comprehensive statutory scheme designed to provide the sole and exclusive remedy for the employee for all injuries arising out of and in the course of employment. (Lab. Code §§ 3600(a), 3602(a); see also Lab.
ANGEL ARTEMIO VALDEZ FIGUEROA VS THREE D SERVICE COMPANY, INC., ET AL.
22STCV25537
Mar 07, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Demurrer Analysis The Workers Compensation Act (“WCA”) governs compensation to employees for injuries incurred in the course and scope of their employment. (See Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4; Lab. Code, § 3201; Charles J. Vacanti, M.D., Inc. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund (2001) 24 Cal.4th 800, 810.) Compensation under the WCA is an employee’s exclusive remedy against an employer for injuries sustained out of and in the course of employment. (See Cal. Labor Code, §§ 3600(a), 3602(a).)
CHRISTOPHER BARRAGAN VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
BC690275
Jul 26, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Analysis Whole Foods demurs to the FAC on Workers Compensation Exclusivity grounds. The Workers Compensation Act (WCA) governs compensation to employees for injuries incurred in the course and scope of their employment. (Cal. Const., Art. XIV, § 4; Lab. Code, § 3201.)¿ Compensation under the WCA is an employees exclusive remedy against an employer for injuries sustained out of and in the course of employment.
MARTHA EVE JIMENEZ VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALTRANS, ET AL.
20STCV45863
Jun 21, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
In opposition, Plaintiffs contend their claims are not barred by the workers compensation exclusivity doctrine because Defendants denied Decedents workers compensation claim and Defendants were not Decedents employer because Defendants assert Decedent was not a statutory employee .
YEYMI ALEJANDRA PEREZ RAMIREZ, ET AL. VS 1037 NORTH SYCAMORE (LOS ANGELES) OWNER, L.P., ET AL.
23STCV11209
Sep 21, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant RBI The Workers Compensation Act (WCA) governs compensation to employees for injuries incurred in the course and scope of their employment. (See Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4; Cal. Labor Code, § 3201; Charles J. Vacanti, M.D., Inc. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund (2001) 24 Cal.4th 800, 810.) Compensation under the WCA is an employees exclusive remedy against an employer for injuries sustained out of and in the course of employment. (See Cal. Labor Code, §§ 3600(a), 3602(a).)
STACEY ADAIR VS SONY PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT, INC., ET AL.
21STCV07150
May 23, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The Workers Compensation Act (“WCA”) governs compensation to employees for injuries incurred in the course and scope of their employment. (See Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4; Labor Code, § 3201; Charles J. Vacanti, M.D., Inc. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund (2001) 24 Cal.4th 800, 810.) Compensation under the WCA is an employee’s exclusive remedy against an employer for injuries sustained out of and in the course of employment. (See Labor Code, §§ 3600(a), 3602(a).)
JOSAF SANDOVAL VS TACO NAZO, ET AL.
20STCV04690
Jan 12, 2021
day s
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Workers Compensation Exclusivity Rule The Workers Compensation Act (“WCA”) governs compensation to employees for injuries incurred in the course and scope of their employment. (See Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4; Labor Code, § 3201; Charles J. Vacanti, M.D., Inc. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund (2001) 24 Cal.4th 800, 810.) Compensation under the WCA is an employee’s exclusive remedy against an employer for injuries sustained out of and in the course of employment. (See Labor Code, §§ 3600(a), 3602(a).)
SILVANO RAMIREZ VS PELICAN PRODUCTS INC ET AL
BC711060
Jan 08, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Merits – WCA Exclusivity – Defendants first argue that each of Plaintiff's claims are preempted by the California Workers' Compensation Act ("WCA"), or Labor Code §§ 3600, 3601, and 3602(a), as each claim is premised on events alleged to have occurred during the course and scope of Plaintiff's employment. In opposition, Plaintiff cites Miklosy v. Regents of University of California (2008) 44 Cal.4th 876, 902 and Livitsanos v.
ROSA DIAZ DE MENJIVAR VS P.R. PERNECKY MANAGEMENT ET AL.
EC068824
Dec 30, 2020
12/14/2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Merits – WCA Exclusivity – Defendants first argue that each of Plaintiff's claims are preempted by the California Workers' Compensation Act ("WCA"), or Labor Code §§ 3600, 3601, and 3602(a), as each claim is premised on events alleged to have occurred during the course and scope of Plaintiff's employment. In opposition, Plaintiff cites Miklosy v. Regents of University of California (2008) 44 Cal.4th 876, 902 and Livitsanos v.
ROSA DIAZ DE MENJIVAR VS P.R. PERNECKY MANAGEMENT ET AL.
EC068824
Jan 15, 2021
12/14/2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Discussion Labor Code Moving Defendants seek summary judgment on the grounds that workers compensation is the exclusive remedy against an employer for injuries sustained out of and in the course of employment. The Workers Compensation Act (WCA) governs compensation to employees for injuries incurred in the course and scope of their employment. (See Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4; Cal. Labor Code, § 3201; Charles J. Vacanti, M.D., Inc. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund (2001) 24 Cal.4th 800, 810.)
PATRICK GALLAWAY ET AL VS BLACK ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LLC
BC712456
Aug 17, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
(a), provides that the workers compensation process is the “sole and exclusive remedy of the employee and his or her dependents against the employer” when the criterion for a workers’ compensation claim is met.
KENNETH BELL VS NESTLE WATERS NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS INC ET
BC713623
Apr 25, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Cross-Complainants allege that they obtained workers’ compensation quotes for the insurance year 2012. They prepared and provided to Liberman and Marsh an EquityComp Workers’ Compensation Program Proposal & Rate Quotation. Cross-Complainants allege that Liberman voluntarily opted to participate in EquityComp in or around March 2012 by executing the Reinsurance Participation Agreement.
LIBERMAN BROADCASTING, INC., ET AL. VS APPLIED UNDERWRITERS, INC., ET AL.
18BBCV00077
Nov 01, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Pursuant to this authority, the Legislature enacted the Workers Compensation Act, a comprehensive statutory scheme governing compensation given to California employees for injuries incurred in the course and scope of their employment. (Lab. Code, § 3201 et seq .) The underlying premise behind this statutorily created system of workers compensation is the compensation bargain. ( Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 16.)
MELISA DOMINGUEZ VS UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV11484
May 26, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Finally, in “adjudicating whether a claim falls within the workers' compensation system, all doubt should be resolved in favor of finding jurisdiction within the workers' compensation system.” (Mitchell, supra, 227 Cal.App.3d at p. 1480; see also Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 879, 881 [“The preferred policy is to repose in the WCAB as much as possible resolution of problems and alleged claims arising out of workers' compensation matters.”]; Gilford v. State Compensation Ins.
KELTON V. COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES, ET AL.
17CECG00897
Jun 14, 2017
Fresno County, CA
Finally, in “adjudicating whether a claim falls within the workers' compensation system, all doubt should be resolved in favor of finding jurisdiction within the workers' compensation system.” (Mitchell, supra, 227 Cal.App.3d at p. 1480; see also Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 879, 881 [“The preferred policy is to repose in the WCAB as much as possible resolution of problems and alleged claims arising out of workers' compensation matters.”]; Gilford v. State Compensation Ins.
KELTON V. COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES, ET AL.
17CECG00897
May 24, 2017
Fresno County, CA
Workers Compensation Act The WCA provides the exclusive remedy for an injury sustained by an employee in the course and scope of employment. (Lab. Code, §§ 3600, subd. (a), 3602, subd. (a); Charles J. Vacanti, M.D., Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (2001) 24 Cal.4th 800, 813, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 562, 14 P.3d 234 (Vacanti).)
JUAN ONTIVEROS, ET AL. VS AMERICAN RACING EQUIPMENT INC., ET AL.
20STCV25116
May 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The Workers Compensation Act (“WCA”) governs compensation to employees for injuries incurred in the course and scope of their employment. (See Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4; Labor Code, § 3201; Charles J. Vacanti, M.D., Inc. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund (2001) 24 Cal.4th 800, 810.) Compensation under the WCA is an employee’s exclusive remedy against an employer for injuries sustained out of and in the course of employment. (See Labor Code, §§ 3600(a), 3602(a).)
CINDY CHAN VS SUDOTOUCH, LLC, ET AL.
20STCV01863
Aug 11, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
All of Plaintiff’s causes of action against Defendant are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act. Workers’ Compensation exclusivity provisions preempt not just causes of action premised on a compensable workplace injury, but also those causes of action premised on injuries that are “collateral to or derivative of” such injuries, including collateral or derivative “injuries stemming from conduct occurring in the workers’ compensation claims process.” (King v.
BANGA V. ACCLAMATION INS. MGMT. SERV., ET AL.
FCS053212
Jun 15, 2020
E. BRADLEY NELSON
Solano County, CA
Workers’ Compensation Has Exclusive Jurisdiction The Workers’ Compensation Act covers employee injuries where: (1) both the employer and employee are subject to the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act; (2) the employee is performing service related to and within the course of employment; (3) the injury is proximately caused by employment; and (4) the employee’s injury is not self-inflicted, does not arise out of an altercation in which the injured employee is the initial physical aggressor, or in the
LAZARO VS STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY
RIC2001833
Jun 02, 2021
Riverside County, CA
One of the purposes of the Workers Compensation Act is “to guarantee prompt, limited compensation for an employee's work injuries, regardless of fault, as an inevitable cost of production”. Bradshaw v. Park (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1267, 1276. Once an employer has received notice of an injury, the employer must submit the claim to the worker’s compensation insurer within five days. Lab. Code, §§ 3760 & 6409.1.
CETTO VS. LOYA
SCV-266372
Apr 24, 2024
Sonoma County, CA
Defendants argue this constitutes an admission that plaintiff lacked workers’ compensation insurance, so lacks capacity to sue. Although the documents are subject to judicial notice under Cal. Evid. Code §452(c), the court cannot say as a matter of law that the certification regarding exemption from the workers’ compensation law is false or means that plaintiff has no right to sue.
SO. CAL. CUSTOM CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS WENDY O. BLOCK, ET AL.
19SMCV01263
Mar 12, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
Moreno’s dependents, are prohibited from bringing this action against their decedent’s employer as remedies under the Workers’ Compensation Act are their sole and exclusive remedies. Liability for compensation for the death of any employee while in the course and scope of employment is exclusively through the Workers’ Compensation Act. Labor Code § 3600. Any compensation sought by the employee’s dependents is exclusively through the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act.
ARMANDO GARCIA ET AL VS ANGEL GERARDO LOPEZ FLORES ET AL
BC699824
Aug 03, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Therein, the appellate court determined that the plaintiffs’ amended complaint alleged against Coca-Cola did not allege facts establishing the conditions of compensation, or a compensable injury, under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Thus, based upon the allegations set forth in the amended complaint, the appellate court found that Coca-Cola should have asserted facts sufficient to raise coverage under the Workers’ Compensation Act. However, it did not.
OANA STOICA VS DAVID HOUCK, ET AL.
20STCV08598
Mar 22, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Generally, “…a defendant in a civil action who claims to be one of that class of persons protected from an action at law by the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act bears the burden of pleading and proving, as an affirmative defense to the action, the existence of the conditions of compensation set forth in the statute which are necessary to its application.” (Doney v. Tambouratgis (1979) 23 Cal.3d 91, 96.)
KEANTAE CARTER VS. SUN VALLEY RAISINS, INC.
23CECG00507
Nov 30, 2023
Fresno County, CA
Lopez sued the owner and the owner cited Privette, supra, at 437-439, in pertinent part : "Under the Workers' Compensation Act [(§§ 3200-6208)] (hereafter the Act), all employees are automatically entitled to recover benefits for injuries 'arising out of and in the course of the employment.' (Lab. Code, § 3600, subd. (a); . . . .)
LEONCIO GARCIA VS. TONY CORTEZ
56-2009-00343797-CU-PO-VTA
Jul 21, 2010
Ventura County, CA
The WCA instructs that its provision are to be 'liberally construed by the courts with the purpose of extending their benefits for the protection of persons injured in the course of their employment.' (Lab. Code, § 3202.) This rule of liberal construction applies even though a particular plaintiff might prefer to forego a workers' compensation remedy in favor of a remedy at law: We construe the WCA ' "in favor of awarding work[ers'] compensation, not in permitting civil litigation."' (King v.
AMANDA STROUT VS PALM
37-2019-00047848-CU-MM-NC
Aug 13, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
When an employees civil complaint seeks to recover from an employer for work related injuries, the Exclusive Remedy Doctrine bars the action unless the employee can establish that the employer failed to secure payment of compensation as required under the Workers Compensation Act. Rymer (1989) 211 CA3d 1171, 1178.
JOSE DE JESUS DIAZ MATA ET AL VS NEWHALL UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST
BC668642
Jul 11, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
These admissions show Plaintiffs claim are barred by the Workers Compensation Act. Plaintiff admits he was working in the scope of his employment at the time of the incident and was in a dual employment situation. Further, the Workers Compensation Act extends to the dual employer context. ( Brassinga , supra , 66 Cal.App.4th at p. 209.) Indeed, RFA Nos. 32 and 33 each, on their own, signal the end to Plaintiffs case.
JAMES HERNANDEZ VS ANSCHUTZ ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.
21STCV28657
Aug 28, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
(Indeed, this is why plaintiffs are concurrently pursuing workers compensation benefits via Thunderbirds workers compensation insurance.) (Dem. 6:6-10.) Defendant argues that it is the statutory employer of Gingrich and the workers he hired, which means that Plaintiffs can only pursue claims under workers compensation. Defendants reliance on Lab. Code §2750.5 is not sufficient to demonstrate that Plaintiffs were employees under the Workers Compensation Act at this stage in the litigation. Lab.
MELBA CASTILLO, ET AL. VS AVMGH SIX-THUNDERBIRD VILLA LIMITED, DBA THUNDERBIRD VILLA MOBILE HOME PARK, ET AL.
23NWCV00762
May 18, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Demurrer TENTATIVE RULING Defendant State Compensation Insurance Fund’s demurrer to the first amended complaint is sustained without leave to amend. All of Plaintiff’s causes of action against Defendant are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act.
BANGA V. ACCLAMATION INS. MGMT. SERV., ET AL.
FCS053212
Apr 30, 2020
E. BRADLEY NELSON
Solano County, CA
Workers compensation As a general rule, Californias Workers Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy for injuries sustained in the course of employment. Labor Code § 3600(a); Torres v. Parkhouse Tire Service, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 995, 1001 (As a general rule, an employee who sustains an industrial injury arising out of and in the course of the employment is limited to recovery under the workers compensation system.) (citations omitted).
HECTOR GUTIERREZ VS INNER CITY EDUCATION FOUNDATION, ET AL., AND DOES 1-20
23TRCV00067
Apr 18, 2023
Timothy Lee Johnson
Los Angeles County, CA
There the Court found defendant had waived the defense of the exclusivity of the Workers Compensation Act by failing to assert it as an affirmative defense.
ISAC HERNANDEZ HERNANDEZ VS SHANE W. JOSEPHS, ET AL.
20STCV17331
Mar 07, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Direct Relief argues that workers’ compensation exclusivity precludes Escobar’s claim for negligence. “Ordinarily, ‘... a defendant in a civil action who claims to be one of that class of persons protected from an action at law by the provisions of the ... [Workers’ Compensation] Act bears the burden of pleading and proving, as an affirmative defense to the action, the existence of the conditions of compensation set forth in the statute which are necessary to its application. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]
ISAAC ESCOBAR VS QUINN LIFT INC
19CV04051
Jul 08, 2020
Santa Barbara County, CA
In its December 14, 2021, ruling on that motion, the Court granted Defendants motion as to Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages and denied it as to whether Plaintiffs claims were barred under the California Workers Compensation Act. The Court found that, as a threshold matter, the applicability of the Workers Compensation Act required a determination that Defendant was Plaintiffs employer.
STEVEN GONZALEZ VS DEL AMO CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL.
20STCV03161
Apr 27, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
An injury under the Workers’ Compensation Act, includes diseases arising out of the employment, which would appear to include Covind-19. Id. at 84; Labor Code § 3208. These causes of action fall within Workers’ Compensation exclusivity. As such, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted as to the fifth, eighth, and ninth causes of action.
HAYWOOD VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CVRI2200079
Aug 31, 2022
Riverside County, CA
JUDICIAL NOTICE The Court denies Defendants request for judicial notice of Plaintiffs application for adjudication of a workers compensation claim. The application shows only that Plaintiff believed she might be entitled to workers compensation benefits. It does not establish that Plaintiffs alleged claims are subject to the workers compensation exclusivity rule. DISCUSSION A.
VARINA GORETTI CARVAJAL VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
23STCV08136
Aug 04, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant now demurs to the FAC arguing the FAC fails to state a claim against it because Plaintiffs claim for workplace injuries falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of workers compensation. Defendant contends that the FAC alleges Plaintiff was injured in the course and scope of his employment, and that Plaintiff has filed a workers compensation claim against his employer for his injuries.
ISRAEL SALAZAR-ARANA VS DE PARK AVENUE 10880 LLC
20STCV41960
May 13, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant demurs to the complaint, contending: The Court can take judicial notice of the file and records from Plaintiff’s ongoing workers’ compensation action; Plaintiff cannot establish admiralty jurisdiction; The Workers’ Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy for Plaintiff’s injuries; The fact that the incident occurred on or near navigable waters does not preclude application of the exclusivity provisions in the Act; Plaintiff was not a seaman; If the Court is otherwise inclined to overrule
BRIAN RANGER VS ALAMITOS BAY YACHT CLUB
19STCV22806
Oct 20, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
In order to rely upon the exclusive remedy defense under the Workers Compensation Act, a defendant must appropriately plead it by affirmative defense. (Dorado v. Knudsen Corp. (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 605, 610.)
CESAR CRUZ VS TERESA MONTES DE OCA, ET AL.
19STCV41706
Oct 07, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Record of California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Workers' Compensation - Workers' compensation court public information search for Edgar Esturban.
EDGAR ESTURBAN VS IRLANDA SANCHEZ, ET AL.
22STCV08568
Aug 26, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Further based on the underlying physical act of aggression, Plaintiff may be able to recover for intentionally inflicted emotional distress. Workers’ compensation is generally the exclusive remedy for emotional distress unless the employer’s conduct falls within an express or implied exception to the exclusivity provision. (Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 16.)
NAYLOR VS SOUTH CORONA AUTO SPA
RIC1904613
Oct 23, 2020
Riverside County, CA
Plaintiff has not alleged any application for workers’ compensation coverage through the insurer for defendant Garfield International Company, Inc., or that a claim by plaintiff Sotelo for workers’ compensation coverage to the insurer for defendant Garfield International Company, Inc. has been denied, or similar facts. Plaintiff is granted 60 days leave to permit discovery in these areas.
SOTELO VS. GARFIELD INTERNATIONAL CO., INC.
30-2016-00876266-CU-PO-CJC
Jul 01, 2017
Orange County, CA
Defendant Graydon argues that Plaintiff’s intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims are barred by worker’ compensation. See Labor Code Section 3600, et seq.. Compensation under the California Workers’ Compensation Act is the exclusive remedy available to employees for any claims against his or her employer or against other employees that “arise out of and in the course of employment.” See Labor Code Section 3600, 3601, 5300; Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 28.
GOLDMAN VS ORINDA ACADEMY, NOR
MSC17-02434
Feb 15, 2018
Steve K. Austin
Contra Costa County, CA
A claim for damages under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) is not preempted by the workers’ compensation act.” Accardi v. Superior Court (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 341, 347 (citation omitted, emphasis in original). As plaintiff recognizes in opposition, “there are certain types of intentional employer conduct which bring the employer beyond the boundaries of the compensation bargain, for which a civil action may be brought.” Fermino v.
ALBERT SALINAS VS AMERICAN MARBLE & GRANITE CO ET AL
BC629657
May 18, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Indeed, the defendants and cross-defendants have raised workers’ compensation exclusivity as a defense in their answers, so the question of whether workers’ compensation is plaintiff’s sole remedy will need to be resolved in both the civil and workers’ compensation actions.
WESTON V. YOUNG’S CARGO, INC.
17CECG01150
Jan 12, 2018
Fresno County, CA
With respect to the subject of Worker's Compensation precluding this civil action, the Court concludes that: "[D]isability discrimination claims are not preempted by the workers' compensation law. Although there is a statute prohibiting discrimination against employees seeking WCAB benefits (Lab.C. § 132a), this does not preclude employees from pursuing Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and common law wrongful discharge remedies for work-related disability discrimination. [City of Moorpark v. Sup.Ct.
JOSEPH DAMORE VS. MCK ENTERPRISES INC
56-2014-00461759-CU-OE-VTA
May 04, 2015
Ventura County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
The County contends it is entitled to summary judgment on all three remaining causes of action because the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule (Labor Code §3602) applies here, that it may only be liable to Plaintiff on a ratification theory, and that there is no evidence of ratification. California’s Workers’ Compensation Act (Labor Code § 3600 et seq.) provides an employee’s exclusive remedy against his or her employer for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment. (Wright v.
MICHAEL RICHMOND, JR. V. ALFONZO GUZMAN, ET AL.
2013-1-CV-255579
Sep 20, 2018
Santa Clara County, CA
The alleged failure to act on the report is conduct derivative of and occurring in the workers’ compensation claims process. The complaint contains no allegations stating a violation of fundamental public policy, acts outside the normal risks of employment, or any other exception to workers’ compensation exclusivity. The exclusivity doctrine bars both claims in the complaint. Liability for Inmate’s Acts.
DIANA MARTINEZ V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL HEALTH
FCS055074
Feb 10, 2021
Solano County, CA
In addition, Plaintiffs recovery against Campco is barred by the Workers Compensation Act. Workers compensation is the sole remedy of an accident stemming from the workplace; as Plaintiff has already filed for and received workers compensation benefits from Campco, Plaintiffs recovery is barred. Campco has met its burden as to indemnity.
VICTORIANO PONTE, AN INDIVIDUAL VS U.S.GROWERS COLD STORAGE, INC., A UNKOWN ENTITY, ET AL.
19STCV26257
Jul 12, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff filed a workers compensation claim against her employer, Elite Optical, claiming the same injuries asserted in this civil action. UF 6, 7. B. The Exclusivity Provisions of the Workers Compensation Act.
JOSEFA URIOSTEGUI VS AMERICAN IRON & METAL, ET AL.
19STCV17793
Jun 28, 2022
12/14/2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The court observed that the determination of whether a person was, when injured, an “employee” for workmen's compensation purposes is not dependent on the common law contractual doctrine, but is to be made in the light of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
SOTELO VS. GARFIELD INTERNATIONAL CO., INC.
30-2016-00876266-CU-PO-CJC
Dec 07, 2017
Orange County, CA
“Where recovery for injury of an employee comes within the Workers’ Compensation Act, the compensation agency has exclusive jurisdiction, and the superior court may not entertain an action for damages against the employer or his insurance carrier.” (Williams v. State Compensation Ins. Fund (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 116, 119-120.)
FLORES VS UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE, LP.
CVRI2301877
Dec 06, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Code sec. 1542 and “the pre-printed C&R phrasing regarding ‘earnings’ does not serve to refer to anything outside the workers’ compensation system.” (Opposition, p. 3.) Here, the Release lacks express, non-standard language providing it is “intended to cover claims which are not compensable under the workers' compensation act.” ( Id. at 374.)
JOSE ZEPEDA, AN INDIVIDUAL VS GREEN LIGHT IMAGING, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
20STCV25462
Apr 07, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
On February 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed a workers’ compensation action with the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (“WCAB”) for recovery of compensation and benefits under California’s Workers’ Compensation Act (the “WCAB Action”). (Request for Judicial Notice (“RFJN”), Ex. A.) On March 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a claim for compensation with the U.S.
JOHN LOWRY V. PORT SAN LUIS HARBOR DISTRICT
17-CV-0155
Jul 26, 2018
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Plaintiffs' specific objection to the delegation clauses is based on its contention that the delegation clauses, distinct from the arbitration provisions of the RPA and distinct from the RPAs, are illegal and therefore void endorsements to the underlying workers' compensation policies.
JACK COOPER HOLDINGS CORP., A DELAWARE CORPORATION ET AL VS. APPLIED UNDERWRITERS, INC. A NEBRASKA CORPORATION
CGC16551683
Jul 26, 2016
San Francisco County, CA
Authorities Re Power Press Exception to Workers Comp: The power press statute is an exception to the workers' compensation exclusivity rule only to the extent that it authorizes an employee who suffers a power press injury to seek to augment his or her recovery under the workers' compensation system; the power press statute does not purport to supplant recovery under the workers' compensation system with an action at law for damages. West's Ann.Cal.Labor Code §§ 3600(b), 4558. LeFiell Mfg. Co. v.
SANTOS VS CRENSHAW MANUFACTURING
30-2017-00948027-CU-PO-CJC
Apr 06, 2018
Orange County, CA
On the other hand, Plaintiff has been aware of Defendant’s lack of workers compensation insurance for several years, and intentionally misled the Court as to this fact. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to file a First Amended Complaint concerning the Fair Day’s Pay Act, and DENIES the request to file a First Amended Complaint alleging a sixteenth cause of action for failure to obtain workers compensation insurance.
TOMAS MORALES VS SANAZ FABRICS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
19STCV20087
Mar 10, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
The Workers Compensation Act (“WCA”) governs compensation to employees for injuries incurred in the course and scope of their employment. (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4; Cal. Labor Code, § 3201; Charles J. Vacanti, M.D., Inc. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund (2001) 24 Cal.4th 800, 810.) Compensation under the WCA is an employee’s exclusive remedy against an employer for injuries sustained out of and in the course of employment. (Cal. Labor Code, §§ 3600(a), 3602(a).)
EMINA MILA YOUNG VS PEGASUS ELITE AVIATION, INC.
20STCV32434
May 11, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The Workers Compensation Act (“WCA”) governs compensation to employees for injuries incurred in the course and scope of their employment. (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4; Cal. Labor Code, § 3201; Charles J. Vacanti, M.D., Inc. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund (2001) 24 Cal.4th 800, 810.) Compensation under the WCA is an employee’s exclusive remedy against an employer for injuries sustained out of and in the course of employment. (Cal. Labor Code, §§ 3600(a), 3602(a).)
EMINA MILA YOUNG VS PEGASUS ELITE AVIATION, INC.
20STCV32434
Apr 05, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The Workers Compensation Act (“WCA”) governs compensation to employees for injuries incurred in the course and scope of their employment. (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4; Cal. Labor Code, § 3201; Charles J. Vacanti, M.D., Inc. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund (2001) 24 Cal.4th 800, 810.) Compensation under the WCA is an employee’s exclusive remedy against an employer for injuries sustained out of and in the course of employment. (Cal. Labor Code, §§ 3600(a), 3602(a).)
EMINA MILA YOUNG VS PEGASUS ELITE AVIATION, INC.
20STCV32434
May 04, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The Workers Compensation Act (“WCA”) governs compensation to employees for injuries incurred in the course and scope of their employment. (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4; Cal. Labor Code, § 3201; Charles J. Vacanti, M.D., Inc. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund (2001) 24 Cal.4th 800, 810.) Compensation under the WCA is an employee’s exclusive remedy against an employer for injuries sustained out of and in the course of employment. (Cal. Labor Code, §§ 3600(a), 3602(a).)
EMINA MILA YOUNG VS PEGASUS ELITE AVIATION, INC.
20STCV32434
May 04, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Absent an allegation, in the complaint, that Plaintiff was a “certified volunteer” for the District, the Court cannot find that she was obligated to submit her claims to the District’s workers’ compensation insurer as her exclusive remedy. Defendant argues in reply that the workers’ compensation act is to be interpreted broadly so as to afford protection and exclusivity.
ELIZABETH ROSE VALDEZ VS LUTHER BURBANK MIDDLE SCHOOL ET AL
BC582094
Sep 14, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Cross-Defendants contend that Cross-Complainant’s seventh cause of action for negligence is barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act. In Coit Drapery Cleaners, Inc. v. Sequoia Ins. Co. (1993) 14 Cal. App. 4th 1595, 1606-7, the court found that any claim against an employer for negligence in connection with alleged sexual harassment and wrongful termination of the employee was barred by the workers’ compensation exclusivity principle. Further, in Cole v.
CONTRERAS VS. CASTANEDA
30-2018-00987774-
Sep 12, 2019
Orange County, CA
TRAM represented that he was properly insured and carried workers compensation insurance for the workers working on the Property. The representation was false; TRAM did not carry the proper workers compensation insurance. In order to have a valid contractors license, the contractor must have proper workers compensation insurance. Since TRAM did not have the proper workers compensation insurance, TRAMs contractors license is automatically suspended as a matter of law.
WILLIAM TRAM, ET AL. VS PETER X. ZHANG, ET AL.
19STCV38574
Mar 10, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Although training and instruction can be considered renumeration under the Workers' Compensation Act to qualify as an employee, the factual circumstances differ here. (See Barragan v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 637 [finding that the plaintiff medical assisting student was an employee under the Workers' Compensation Act when the plaintiff completed her on-the-job training requirements for graduation at a local hospital].)
DAVID SPRINGER ET AL VS. ASBESTOS COMPANIES ET AL
CGC20276849
Apr 28, 2021
San Francisco County, CA
While he was not an “employee” of the County under the narrower definition of that term in the FEHA regulations, he was an “employee” for the purposes of the Workers’ Compensation Act. (Arriaga, supra, at pp. 1062-1063.) Indeed, he received workers’ compensation benefits after he suffered his injuries. (UMF No. 31.) As a result, his negligence claim is barred, as workers’ compensation benefits are his exclusive remedy for his injuries. (Shoemaker v. Meyers, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 18.)
TALLEY V. COUNTY OF FRESNO
17CECG00212
Sep 11, 2018
Fresno County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
The California Workers’ Compensation Act provides a comprehensive system of remedies for on- the-job injuries and provides that the sole and exclusive remedy for such injuries are proceedings before the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. Labor Code §§ 3600 et seq.
MAGANA VS. HIGHWAY SPECIALTY COMPANY, INC,
23CV-0203122
Dec 12, 2023
Shasta County, CA
The California Workers’ Compensation Act provides a comprehensive system of remedies for on- the-job injuries and provides that the sole and exclusive remedy for such injuries are proceedings before the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. Labor Code §§ 3600 et seq.
MAGANA VS. HIGHWAY SPECIALTY COMPANY, INC,
23CV-0203122
Dec 13, 2023
Shasta County, CA
The California Workers’ Compensation Act provides a comprehensive system of remedies for on- the-job injuries and provides that the sole and exclusive remedy for such injuries are proceedings before the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. Labor Code §§ 3600 et seq.
MAGANA VS. HIGHWAY SPECIALTY COMPANY, INC,
23CV-0203122
Dec 14, 2023
Shasta County, CA
The California Workers’ Compensation Act provides a comprehensive system of remedies for on- the-job injuries and provides that the sole and exclusive remedy for such injuries are proceedings before the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. Labor Code §§ 3600 et seq.
MAGANA VS. HIGHWAY SPECIALTY COMPANY, INC,
23CV-0203122
Dec 15, 2023
Shasta County, CA
The California Workers’ Compensation Act provides a comprehensive system of remedies for on- the-job injuries and provides that the sole and exclusive remedy for such injuries are proceedings before the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. Labor Code §§ 3600 et seq.
MAGANA VS. HIGHWAY SPECIALTY COMPANY, INC,
23CV-0203122
Dec 10, 2023
Shasta County, CA
The California Workers’ Compensation Act provides a comprehensive system of remedies for on- the-job injuries and provides that the sole and exclusive remedy for such injuries are proceedings before the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. Labor Code §§ 3600 et seq.
MAGANA VS. HIGHWAY SPECIALTY COMPANY, INC,
23CV-0203122
Dec 09, 2023
Shasta County, CA
The California Workers’ Compensation Act provides a comprehensive system of remedies for on- the-job injuries and provides that the sole and exclusive remedy for such injuries are proceedings before the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. Labor Code §§ 3600 et seq.
MAGANA VS. HIGHWAY SPECIALTY COMPANY, INC,
23CV-0203122
Dec 11, 2023
Shasta County, CA
While Garda may have the right to intervene or file a lien, the issue is not relevant to this motion, which is directed to the allegations in the complaint and based on the Workers’ Compensation Act. (See Laabs, supra, 163 Cal.App.4th at p. 1258.) In sum, Garda has demonstrated that the rule of workers’ compensation exclusivity bars Plaintiff’s action as a matter of law, and Plaintiff, who acknowledges that Garda may appropriately be dismissed, does not raise a triable issue of material fact.
RICARDO SANTOS VS AT SYSTEMS WEST INC
BC528715
Oct 21, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.