262 F. Supp. 3d 935
N.D. Cal.2017Background
- Thirteen-plaintiff action narrowed to two plaintiffs (Walker and Carreker) and three defendant NFL clubs (San Diego Chargers, Denver Broncos, Green Bay Packers) with only intentional misrepresentation claims remaining.
- Walker alleges Chargers misrepresented prioritizing player health; after an ankle sprain he continued to play with Toradol injections and now suffers ongoing ankle pain.
- Carreker alleges Broncos and Packers misrepresented prioritizing player health; he ingested large quantities of anti-inflammatories, later developed drug-resistant infection/inflammation requiring heart surgery.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing each claim is barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity in the relevant states (California for Chargers, Colorado for Broncos, Wisconsin for Packers).
- Plaintiffs concede injuries arose in the course of employment but invoke intentional-harm/fraudulent-concealment exceptions to exclusivity; court evaluated whether factual disputes preclude summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California fraudulent‑concealment/intentional‑harm exception defeats exclusivity for Walker | Walker: Chargers hid risks of medications and deliberately provided dangerous meds without warnings, aggravating his injury | Chargers: Workers’ comp exclusivity applies; no evidence Chargers concealed knowledge of Walker’s specific ankle injury or intended to injure him | Held: No genuine dispute — Walker knew of his injury; plaintiffs fail to show concealment of the injury itself or specific intent to injure, so exclusivity applies. |
| Whether California willful‑assault or deliberate‑injury doctrine applies to employer misconduct | Walker: Employer’s deliberate conduct in providing meds equals specific intent to injure | Chargers: Willful‑assault exception is narrow and tied to intentional physical assault; egregious conduct alone insufficient | Held: Narrow exception does not apply; mere culpability or dangerous conduct without intent to injure is barred by exclusivity. |
| Whether Colorado intentional‑harm exception defeats exclusivity for Carreker v. Broncos | Carreker: Administration of large amounts of unlabeled controlled substances created a jury question that Broncos intentionally injured him | Broncos: Colorado law requires deliberate intent to cause injury; allegations of wanton/willful disregard insufficient | Held: Colorado law bars claim; prior Colorado authority shows exclusivity covers these work‑related injuries absent deliberate intent to harm. |
| Whether Wisconsin assault/coemployee exception defeats exclusivity for Carreker v. Packers | Carreker: Packers’ conduct was sufficiently dangerous/substantially certain to cause injury; team medical staff effectively coemployees | Packers: Wisconsin’s exception applies to assaults by coemployees, not employers; plaintiffs sued the employer and do not allege assault | Held: Plaintiffs fail to invoke the coemployee/assault exception; exclusivity applies to the Packers claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johns-Manville Prods. Corp. v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.3d 465 (Cal. 1980) (fraudulent concealment exception where employer concealed illness and its work connection after employee became ill)
- Fermino v. Fedco, Inc., 7 Cal.4th 701 (Cal. 1994) (discussing limited fraudulent‑concealment exception and boundaries of exceptions to exclusivity)
- Vacanti v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 24 Cal.4th 800 (Cal. 2001) (exclusive remedy applies even where employer conduct is egregious if injury arose in course of employment)
- Ellis v. Rocky Mountain Empire Sports, Inc., 602 P.2d 895 (Colo. App. 1979) (workers’ compensation exclusivity barred claims against Broncos for work‑related injuries despite allegations of negligent/intentionally harmful conduct)
- Schwindt v. Hershey Foods Corp., 81 P.3d 1144 (Colo. App. 2003) (distinguishing wanton/willful disregard from the requisite deliberate intent to injure for exclusive remedy exceptions)
- W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Berger, 192 Wis.2d 743 (Wis. 1995) (assault/coemployee exception narrowly construed; exclusivity generally bars employer‑employee work‑related injury claims)