73 Cal.App.5th 66
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Plaintiffs (wife and daughters of decedent Arturo Ek) allege See’s Candies employee Mrs. Ek contracted COVID-19 at work and then transmitted it at home to Mr. Ek, who died; plaintiffs sued for negligence and premises liability.
- Defendants demurred, arguing plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) under the derivative injury doctrine.
- Trial court overruled the demurrer, reasoning plaintiffs sue for Mr. Ek’s independent injury/death, not for harms derivative of Mrs. Ek’s workplace injury.
- Defendants sought writ review; Court of Appeal issued an order to show cause and heard the matter.
- The Court of Appeal denied the petition, holding Snyder and related law do not support treating every nonemployee injury that is causally linked to an employee injury as derivative and barred by WCA exclusivity.
- The court expressly did not decide (and left for the trial court) whether defendants owed a duty to Mr. Ek or whether causation/merits can be proven; the opinion focuses solely on WCA preemption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WCA exclusivity/derivative injury doctrine bars nonemployee’s wrongful-death claim where the nonemployee’s injury resulted from an employee’s workplace-acquired COVID-19 | Plaintiffs: Mr. Ek’s death is an independent injury to a nonemployee and not legally or logically dependent on any compensable injury to Mrs. Ek | Defendants: Any claim that would not exist but for an employee’s compensable injury is derivative and thus preempted by the WCA (per Snyder’s language) | Court: Rejected defendants’ but-for/causation-only reading of the derivative injury doctrine; nonemployee physical injuries causally linked to an employee injury are not automatically derivative and preempted. |
| Whether public policy / administrative concerns require judicial expansion of derivative injury doctrine to cover pandemic-transmission cases | Plaintiffs: Remedy lies in tort unless WCA preemption clearly applies; policy concerns do not justify expanding preemption | Defendants/Amici: Expanding liability would overwhelm courts and defeat the compensation bargain; WCA exclusivity should prevent cascading tort claims | Court: Recognizes policy concerns but refuses to expand doctrine judicially; such changes belong to the Legislature. |
Key Cases Cited
- Snyder v. Michael’s Stores, Inc., 16 Cal.4th 991 (Cal. 1997) (holds derivative-injury preemption applies only to claims legally/logically dependent on an employee’s compensable injury; rejects causation-alone rule)
- King v. CompPartners, Inc., 5 Cal.5th 1039 (Cal. 2018) (explains WCA exclusivity and scope of derivative-injury doctrine)
- Kesner v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.5th 1132 (Cal. 2016) (analyzes employer duties to household members in take-home exposure context)
- Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Protection Dist., 43 Cal.3d 148 (Cal. 1987) (recognizes spouse loss-of-consortium claims are derivative of employee injury and preempted)
- Vacanti v. State Compensation Ins. Fund, 24 Cal.4th 800 (Cal. 2001) (applies derivative-injury doctrine to harms arising from the workers’ compensation administrative process)
- Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal.3d 644 (Cal. 1989) (sets elements for bystander emotional-distress claims and illustrates logical dependence on direct victim’s injury)
- Woerth v. United States, 714 F.2d 648 (6th Cir. 1983) (federal precedent holding third-party infection via employee does not make claim FECA-preempted)
- Salin v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 136 Cal.App.3d 185 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982) (Court of Appeal decision extending derivative rule to post-injury acts; Snyder later questioned this approach)