LeFiell Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Court, 55 Cal. 4th 275

Employees injured on the job are generally limited to workers’ compensation as their exclusive remedy against the employer.
Section 4558 creates a narrow power press exception allowing an employee (or dependents if death) to sue for damages when a point-of-operation guard is knowingly removed or not installed under certain conditions known to create serious injury.
In this case, the employee was injured operating a FENN 5f power press without a guard and sued under § 4558, including a loss of consortium claim by the spouse.
The trial court allowed the spouse’s loss of consortium claim to proceed, relying on the employee’s § 4558 action to permit the derivative claim.
The Court of Appeal held the spouse’s loss of consortium claim could proceed, interpreting § 4558 as removing the exclusivity bar for both employee and dependent spouse.
The California Supreme Court reversed, holding that the power press remedy augments but does not replace the workers’ compensation system, so the exclusivity rule bars the spouse’s loss of consortium claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May spousal loss of consortium be pursued under § 4558?	Watrous spouse argues consortium allowed as derivative of power press action.	4558 limits standing to employee or dependents upon death; spouse cannot pursue.	No; spouse cannot pursue loss of consortium under § 4558.
Does derivative injury doctrine bar the spouse’s claim?	Spouse’s claim is independent of employee’s injury due to § 4558 action.	Spouse’s claim is derivative of employee’s injury and barred by exclusivity.	Yes; derivative loss of consortium remains barred by exclusivity.
Does § 4558 remove exclusivity for employee's power press injury and bootstrap other claims?	Power press action places employee outside exclusive remedy, enabling others.	4558 does not permit bootstrap of other civil causes of action into the worker’s compensation framework.	No; § 4558 does not place the entire injury outside workers’ compensation; exclusivity remains.
May employee’s § 4558 action coexist with workers’ compensation with a setoff/credit provision?	Civil recovery could supplement compensation benefits.	Setoff/credit applies when there is a civil judgment or settlement under § 3600(b).	Remains subject to setoff/credit against any civil damages obtained.

Shoemaker v. Myers, 52 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1990) (exclusivity bargain rationale for workers’ compensation)
Snyder v. Michael’s Stores, Inc., 16 Cal.4th 991 (Cal. 1997) (derivative injury rule; exclusivity applies to nonemployee claims)
Award Metals, Inc. v. Superior Court, 228 Cal.App.3d 1128 (Cal. App. Dist. 1989) (narrow construction of § 4558; bootstrapping not allowed)
Burnelle v. Continental Can Co., 193 Cal.App.3d 315 (Cal. App. Dist. 1987) (setoff/credit principle for civil action under workers’ comp exceptions)
Williams v. State Compensation Ins. Fund, 50 Cal.App.3d 116 (Cal. App. Dist. 1975) (derivative wrongful death/consortium principles under exclusivity)