Wrongful death suit barred because workers' compensation exclusive remedy, employer argues
In a recent case, the California Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s dismissal of a wrongful death complaint filed by the surviving relatives of an employee who died following a tragic accident during his work break.
A man left his workplace – a Whole Foods market in Venice, California – while on a 15-minute work break. A pickup truck hit him in a crosswalk at a nearby intersection. He walked back to the market, where he told his supervisors about his injury and about his desire to go home.
His supervisors examined his head and gave him ice for his injury. They asked him to wait while they printed out forms and discussed which ones he had to fill out. They made him sign a single form and asked a coworker to drive him home. He died a few hours later.
His widow and three children filed a lawsuit alleging wrongful death against several defendants, including his employer, Mrs. Gooch’s Natural Food Markets, Inc. The employer argued that the wrongful death suit was barred because workers’ compensation was the exclusive remedy for his injuries.
Read more: Employer tries not to pay compensation for worker injured after bar visit
The plaintiffs cited two exceptions to the general principle that workers’ compensation was the exclusive remedy for a workplace injury: dual capacity and fraudulent concealment.
The dual capacity doctrine provides that an employer may have or assume a relationship with an employee other than an employer-employee relationship and that, when damages are claimed for injuries arising out of this secondary relationship, the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act were inapplicable.
The plaintiffs argued that Mrs. Gooch’s was liable for negligence outside the workers’ compensation scheme because it acted in a dual capacity after the accident through its employees. In addition to acting as an employer, Mrs. Gooch’s also allegedly acted as a provider of emergency first aid services.
As for the fraudulent concealment exception, it applies when the evidence shows that the employer knew about the employee’s work-related injury, that the employer concealed that knowledge from the employee, and that the concealment worsened the injury.
An administrative law judge and the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board ruled in favor of Mrs. Gooch’s and dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint. They decided that the injuries and death fell within the scope of workers’ compensation because they arose out of the employment and occurred in the course of that employment.
The plaintiffs appealed. In the case of Jimenez v. Mrs. Gooch's Natural Food Markets, Inc., the California Court of Appeal for the Second District affirmed the dismissal of the wrongful death suit.
First, the appellate court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument alleging the dual capacity exception. The lawsuit did not allege that the store employees rendering assistance were medical professionals. Rather, it alleged that the employee received first aid assistance from Mrs. Gooch’s in its capacity as his employer.
These allegations did not suggest that Mrs. Gooch’s or its employees assumed a separate and independent role as providers of medical services unrelated to the employment relationship, the appellate court said.
Next, the appellate court denied the plaintiffs’ argument alleging the fraudulent concealment exception. The exception was inapplicable if the employee was aware of the injury at all times, the appellate court noted.
In this case, the lawsuit did not allege and could not reasonably allege that the employee did not know about his injury, the appellate court said. Instead, it alleged that Mrs. Gooch’s was unaware of the employee’s injury until he told his supervisors that he was involved in an accident.
