Last week, the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that employers are not liable to nonemployees who contract COVID-19 from employee household members that bring the virus home from their workplace, because “[a]n employer does not owe a duty of care under California law to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to employees’ household members.” Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc., No. S274191 (Cal. July 6, 2023),
Spring in California can only mean one thing, and no, it’s not Coachella, Dodgers games or even the return of the swallows to San Juan Capistrano—it’s the annual release of the California Chamber of Commerce’s list of “Job Killer Bills.”
Once again, this list proves that former California Governor Jerry Brown had it right when he wrote in a legislative veto message: “Not every
Last week, the California Supreme Court agreed to decide two unique questions with far-reaching implications for employer liability: (1) may an employer be held liable to an employee’s spouse when an employee contracts COVID-19 in the workplace and then infects their spouse at home, and (2) does an employer have a duty of care to its employees’ households to prevent the spread of COVID-19?
The
We invite you to review our newly-posted September 2018 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
King v. CompPartners, Inc., 2018 WL 4017874 (Cal. S. Ct. 2018)
Two physician-utilization reviewers acting on behalf of Kirk King’s employer determined that a treatment that had been recommended for King (an employee who had suffered an injury covered by workers’ compensation) was not “medically necessary” and decertified the prescription without providing for a weaning regimen. Upon being denied the prescription, King suffered a
Lantz v. WCAB, 226 Cal. App. 4th 298 (2014)
Lieutenant Seth Patrick Lantz, a 33-year-old correctional officer at Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga, California, was killed in an automobile accident on his way home from work. Lantz’s widow, on behalf of herself and her four children, applied for workers’ compensation benefits, contending that Lantz sustained the fatal injury during the course of his
Gravelin v. Satterfield, 200 Cal. App. 4th 1209 (2011)
Gary Gravelin was injured while installing a satellite dish on the roof of a residence. Although Gravelin received workers’ compensation benefits from his employer, he sued the homeowners. The trial court granted summary judgment to the homeowners on the ground that in the absence of an exception to the doctrine enunciated in Privette v. Superior