California Supreme Court declines to hear See’s Candies appeal
The California Supreme Court denied a request to review an appellate court decision holding that the derivative injury doctrine doesn’t preclude a lawsuit alleging a business negligently exposed a worker to COVID-19 that resulted in the death of a family member.
See’s Candies on Jan. 28 petitioned the state’s top court to review the Dec. 21 decision of the 2nd District Court of Appeal in See’s Candies Inc. v. Los Angeles Superior Court et al. The state Supreme Court denied the petition for review without comment April 13.
The appeals court said the theory that workers compensation exclusivity attaches collateral claims to a compensable injury doesn’t apply to the lawsuit Matilde Ek filed. Ms. Ek said she was exposed to COVID-19 while working for See’s Candies in part because the company allegedly failed to implement appropriate safeguards. She claims she brought the disease home and transmitted it to family members including her husband, Arturo Ek, who died.
The appeals court said it was clear that the derivative injury doctrine doesn’t apply to the claim in this case.
“Plaintiffs do not seek damages for losses arising from a disabling or lethal injury to Mrs. Ek, such as loss of her support or companionship, or emotional trauma caused by observing Mr. Ek’s suffering,” that decision states. “Nor do they sue for ‘injuries that arose during the treatment of (an employee’s) industrial injury’ or ‘in the course of the workers’ compensation claims process.’ Instead, they sue for damages arising from Mr. Ek’s death, an event allegedly causally related to Mrs. Ek’s alleged infection by the virus in the workplace, but … not derivative of that infection.”
WorkCompCentral is a sister publication of Business Insurance. More stories here.
