Employees who are injured at work generally only have the right to recover compensation through workers’ compensation instead of by filing lawsuits against their employers. However, there are a few narrow exceptions that might allow an injured worker to step outside of the workers’ compensation system and file a lawsuit against their employer. In Jimenez v. Mrs. Gooch’s Natural Food Markets, Inc., Cal. Ct. App. Case No. B322732, the Court of Appeal considered whether two exceptions to the exclusive remedy rule applied in a case involving a man who was seriously injured and subsequently died in a pedestrian accident that happened while he was on a short break from work.
Factual and Procedural Background
Timoteo Martinez Ildefonso was employed by a Whole Foods market owned by parent company Mrs. Gooch’s Natural Food Markets, Inc. in Venice, California. Martinez Ildefonso took a 15-minute break, during which he briefly walked off-site. When returning to the store, Martinez Ildefonso crossed a busy road in a crosswalk and was struck by a pickup truck. Following the accident, he walked back to the store. He was given an ice pack by his employer and was asked to fill out a form. He was then given a ride home, and he died several hours later at home from his injuries.
Martinez Ildefonso left behind his wife, Martha Jimenez, and three young children. The family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against multiple parties, including Ms. Gooch’s Natural Food Markets, Inc. The plaintiffs alleged the case fell outside of the workers’ compensation system based on two exceptions to the wrongful death exclusivity rule, which states that workers’ compensation is the sole and exclusive remedy for workers who are injured or killed while working on the job.
The first exception alleged in the complaint was that Mrs. Gooch’s Natural Food Markets acted as an emergency first responder when the supervisor handed Ildefonson an icepack and made him fill out an injury report form when he asked to go home. The store didn’t call 911 or allow Ildefonso to leave to seek medical care. They argued that since the management acted in a dual capacity as both Ildefonso’s employer and as an emergency first responder, the case met the dual capacity exception to the exclusive remedy rule.
They also argued that the employees’ conduct met the fraudulent concealment exception to the exclusive remedy rule. The plaintiffs argued that the employees failed to tell Ildefonso that his injuries were related to his job. They argued if the employees had informed him that his injuries were job-related, they would have made him wait to be examined by a paramedic. The plaintiffs said that Ildefonso’s past actions demonstrated he would have followed his employer’s instructions to wait for medical care. Two weeks before his accident, Ildefonso had cut his thumb and went to urgent care as instructed by his employer. The plaintiffs argued that because of the employees’ fraudulent concealment of the fact that his injuries were work-related, they caused his injuries to worsen without medical care and lead to his death.
Mr. Idelfonso’s accident happened at 9:33 p.m. He was given a ride home by the other employee at 10:01 p.m. His wife, Martha Martinez, arrived home from work at 11:13 p.m., at which time she called 911. This meant that Ildefonso did not receive a medical examination for his injuries for around two hours following his accident.
Mrs. Gooch’s Natural Food Markets filed a demurrer to the complaint and argued that it failed to state a cause of action since the injuries were work-related and workers’ compensation benefits had already been paid. The defendant argued that the case did not meet the dual capacity exception because that exception is normally used when an employer steps into a different role. However, they argued that the employees in this case only provided basic first aid incidental to Ildefonso’s employment and did not step into a separate role as an emergency responder.
The defendant also argued that the fraudulent concealment exception did not apply. They argued that this exception only applies when the defendant conceals both the injury and the fact that it was connected to employment. In Ildefonso’s case, he knew about his injury, so the exception wouldn’t apply.
Martinez filed an opposition to the defendant’s demurrer, which included a declaration by the attorney about the contents of a video obtained during discovery and statements made by third-party witnesses. The plaintiffs argued that the dual capacity exception would still apply even if the first aid provided by the employees was incidental to his employment. They argued that when they provided first aid, they caused Ildefonso to suffer additional injuries.
They also argued that the fraudulent concealment exception applied because even though Ildefonso was aware of his injury, he wasn’t aware that it was related to his job. They argued that the concealment of the fact that it was work-related by his supervisor prevented him from seeking and receiving medical care, and the two-hour delay in treatment caused his injuries to worsen so significantly that he died.
Mrs. Gooch’s Natural Food Markets filed a reply to the plaintiffs’ opposition. It objected to the attorney’s declaration and argued that the application of an ice pack by the employees was not enough to amount to the provision of negligent emergency medical care. The defendant also argued that Ildefonso must have known that his injury was related to his employment since he was asked to sign an injury report form by the defendant’s employees.
The trial court granted the demurrer without leave to amend and ruled that workers’ compensation applied and was the sole remedy for Ildefonso’s injury. The court ruled that neither of the two exceptions argued by the plaintiff applied to the situation. The plaintiff filed an appeal.
Issue: Did the Trial Court Err by Finding the Two Exceptions Didn’t Apply and That Workers’ Compensation Was the Exclusive and Sole Remedy?
The plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred by finding that the dual capacity and fraudulent concealment exceptions to the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule didn’t apply. They also argued the court erred by granting the defendant’s demurrer without granting the plaintiff leave to amend. The defendant argued that the trial court was correct and pointed out that the dual capacity exception is narrowly construed and that the plaintiff had not presented evidence to support fraudulent concealment. For those reasons, the defendant argued that the court did not err when it sustained the demurrer without giving the plaintiff leave to amend its pleadings.
Rule: Workers’ Compensation Is the Exclusive Remedy When Workers Are Injured on the Job With Few Exceptions.
Under the California Workers’ Compensation Act, injured employees and their families have the right to recover compensation through the Workers’ Compensation system and do not have to prove their employers were negligent. In exchange for the right to compensation, employees cannot file lawsuits against their employers for negligence. There are only a few narrow exceptions to the exclusive remedy rule.
The appellate court first addressed when a trial court can sustain a demurrer without granting the plaintiff leave to amend. The trial court can do so when there isn’t a reasonable probability that amending the pleadings will cure the defect. If the defect in the pleadings can’t be cured, the court will affirm the trial court’s ruling.
Next, the court examined the workers’ compensation law and the two exceptions claimed by the plaintiff. The court noted that workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy for injured workers and their families when a worker’s injury arises out of their employment. The court noted that the Workers Compensation Appeal Board had already ruled that Ildefonso’s injury was employment-related. The court then considered whether either of the two exceptions argued by the plaintiff applied and would allow the plaintiff to sue the defendant for negligence.
First, the court examined the dual capacity exception as it related to the facts and circumstances of what occurred. The plaintiff argued that Mrs. Gooch’s employees acted in a dual capacity as both Ildefonso’s employer and as emergency first responders following his accident by administering first aid. Under the dual capacity exception, an employee can file a lawsuit against their employer when the employer acts in a second capacity, and the employee’s injuries arise from that second role.
The court relied on the California Supreme Court’s holding in Duprey v. Shane, 39 Cal.2d 781 (1952). In that case, a nurse who worked at a chiropractor’s office was injured on the job. Instead of sending the nurse for treatment, the chiropractor treated her himself and caused additional injuries. The California Supreme Court found that the nurse was allowed to sue the chiropractor because he had assumed a second role as her doctor in addition to his role as her employer and provided negligent medical care.
The Court of Appeal contrasted Duprey with what happened in Ildefonso’s case. The court noted that other cases have found that the dual capacity exception is not met when an employer provides medical care that is only incidental to employment. The court then found that the provision of basic first aid to Ildefonso did not amount to anything more than basic medical care incidental to Ildefonso’s employment, so the dual capacity exception did not apply.
The court then considered whether the fraudulent concealment exception applied. The court noted that the complaint did not allege that the defendant concealed Ildefonso’s injury. It noted that Ildefonso immediately reported his injury when it occurred. Since no facts were alleged to show that the defendant concealed his injury, the fraudulent concealment exception could not apply.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision. It awarded Mrs. Gooch’s Natural Whole Foods its costs on appeal.
Consult an Injury Lawyer
If you have been injured on the job, you need to determine whether workers’ compensation is your exclusive remedy or if you might also have grounds to file a lawsuit. Additional compensation is available through a lawsuit. However, you must have grounds to step outside of the workers’ compensation system before you pursue compensation from your employer through a negligence claim. Contact the law firm of Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC today to learn about your rights by calling us at 866.966.5240.
We’re also proud to announce that this blog has been named among the top 100 blogs on California law by Feedspot (see https://blog.feedspot.com/california_injury_blogs/ )