 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rymer v. Hagler6/27/1989
l court granted Hagler's motion, and judgment on the pleadings was entered in his favor. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Discussion
I.
Did the Trial Court Err in Applying the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel to the Issue of Whether Respondent Had "Secured Payment of Compensation" as Required by Section 3700 ?
Appellant contends the trial court erred in granting respondent's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Appellant argues the trial court incorrectly applied the doctrine of res judicata to the determination of workers' compensation coverage made by the WCAB judge and, by implication, erroneously held the so-called "coverage by estoppel" sufficiently
complied with the requirement of section 3700 so as to bar the instant civil action.
The California Workers' Compensation Act (Act) provides an elaborate and complete scheme for the adjudication of claims by employees against employers for injuries arising out of the course and scope of employment. (§ 3600 et seq.; Santiago v. Employee Benefits Services (1985) 168 Cal. App. 3d 898 [214 Cal. Rptr. 679]; Johns-Mansville Products Corp. v. Superior Court (1980) 27 Cal. 3d 465 [165 Cal. Rptr. 858, 612 P.2d 948, 9 A.L.R.4th 758].) The workers' compensation statute has long been held to provide the exclusive remedy against an employer for work-related death or injury with a few statutory and judicially created exceptions. (Young v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co. (1985) 168 Cal. App. 3d 1037 [214 Cal. Rptr. 400], citing Johns-Mansville Products Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 27 Cal. 3d at pp. 467-468.)
Section 3706 is one of the principal exceptions to the Act's exclusive remedy rule. Section 3706 provides: "If any employer fails to secure the payment of compensation, any injured employee or his dependents may bring an action at law against such employer for damages, as if this division did not apply." Section 3706 provides an alternative remedy to an injured worker where the employer has failed to secure the payment of compensation required by section 3700. (Young v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., supra, 168 Cal. App. 3d 1037; Felix v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 41 Cal. App. 3d 759 [116 Cal. Rptr. 345].) Jurisdiction of the superior court to try claims of an employee against his employer for damages under section 3706 arises only when payment of compensation is not secured. (Scott v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1956) 46 Cal. 2d 76 [293 P.2d 18]; Strickland v. Foster (1985) 165 Cal. App. 3d 114 [211 Cal. Rptr. 305]; Coffin v. Bloodworth (1938) 28 Cal. App. 2d 522 [82 P.2d 953].) Under the exclusivity provisions of the Act this is true even though, in some instances, a particular worker may have a better claim in a state civil action. (Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 164 Cal. App. 3d 320 [210 Cal. Rptr. 417].)
Because the complaint in the instant action seeks recovery against an employer for work-related injuries, the exclusivity rule will bar appellant's superior court action unless he can establish that Hagler failed "to secure the payment of compensation" as required under the Act. It is appellant's burden to show there was no coverage. (Doney v. Tambouratgis (1979) 23 Cal. 3d 91, 99, fn. 11 [151 Cal. Rptr. 347, 587 P.2d 1160].)
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|