Comp not exclusive remedy in this case
January 5, 2009 by Fred HosierPosted in: In this week's e-newsletter, Injuries, Latest News & Views, Workers' comp
PDF A worker injured at a construction site sued his employer. The company said it couldn’t be sued because workers’ comp is the exclusive remedy for injured workers.
But the California Court of Appeal disagreed with the company’s argument because the worker was an independent contractor.
Jeffrey Tverberg was hired by a subcontractor to install a canopy at a gas station. He fell into a hole at the construction site and was injured.
He sued the general contractor and its subcontractor.
The contractor argued that California case law holds that the hirer of a contractor owes no duty of care to the contractor’s injured worker because his remedy is workers’ comp.
But the court said that case law wasn’t applicable because the plaintiff was an independent contractor, not an employee.
Now the case will either go to trial, or the company will try to reach a settlement. Both options could be quite expensive.
Cite: Tverberg v. Fillner
The Safety Insights You Need
Get the latest safety news, trends, and insights - delivered weekly.
Join over 334,000 safety pros:
Privacy policy
Tags: contractor, court, injured, Workers' comp
Loading ...
April 6th, 2009 at 10:14 am
I inform most employees who have lost time injuries about what they should expect to receive.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
The workers compensation laws were put in place to prevent this very situation where employees and employers litigated workplace injuries in the courts. It was considered a fair arrangement for both sides and far better than going to court.
The case above, is just a technical way around the workers comp. laws by looking for someone to sue who is not the direct employer, thereby using a trick to get settlement through litigation as the way to obtain compensation for an injury.
If this worker was truly an independent contractor, he should get insurance on himself or take responsibility for his own injuries, just like he would if he were working on his own job and not for a subcontractor who was under a general contractor.
Now the general contractor is put in the position of having to defend in court and maybe having to prove contributory negligence, or force the “independent contractor” to prove that he is legally qualified to be considered an independent contractor and if not counter sue for misrepresentation and unjust enrichment, or sue the subcontractor or some other approach.
I have noticed over 30 plus years experience, that a well written contract would usually prevent this type of legal entanglement.
April 18th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
I am Independent Contract0r,which was leased to a trucking Co. in Houston,Tx.been there about 4 years just before I had a stroke on the job .I had just pull off from my last stop in Seguin Tx.Pull on side road with then 5 min.my left side had stop moving.I was brought back to Houston,Iwas in the hospital for about 17 days.Now I pay out workers-comp.from my payroll.When I call the company about my claim on the job the Inc.company,I was denial workers-comp because of my contract “Exclusion”they don’t pay for occup/illnesson the job.From July 28,2009 ,till now I haven got a dime.The job say my stroke wasn’t cause by the job and left it like thAT.SO THE INC.COMPANY WON’T DO ANYTHING.I haul oilfield pipes to oil well and pipe yards and some time thats a all day waiting thING,THEN YOU GOT TO DRIVER ALL NIGHT TRyING TO GET TO PLACE YOU SURPOSE TO BE AT.I had got w/c adjuster to help me ,but all they saying is the stroke is not job related,so do I have a case are not.