iLaw Dictionary			USAConstitution Law
						California			Law Students-USL
						Law Dictionary			BankruptcyCode.US
						Exclusive Remedy Rule			United States Law.US

A Legal and Business Portal-Home Page

iLaw Dictionary
California
Law Dictionary
Workers Compensation Exclusive Remedy Rule
(Mason v. Lake Dolores Group)

Workers Compensation Exclusive Remedy Rule
 (Mason v. Lake Dolores Group)

B.  The Workers’ Compensation Exclusive Remedy Rule Does Not Bar Mason’s Negligence Action  

            Subject to statutory exceptions not applicable here, an injured employee’s sole and exclusive remedy against his employer is the right to recover workers’ compensation benefits, provided “the conditions of compensation set forth in Section 3600 concur.”  (§ 3602, subd. (a); Wright v. Beverly Fabrics, Inc., supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at p. 352.)  “If any of these conditions do[] not exist, the employee may bring a civil action against the employer.  (§ 3602, subd. (c) . . . .)”  (Lenk v. Total-Western, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 959, 971.)

            “[T]he legal theory supporting [the workers’ compensation] exclusive remedy provisions is a presumed ‘compensation bargain,’ pursuant to which the employer assumes liability for industrial personal injury or death without regard to fault in exchange for limitations on the amount of that liability.  The employee is afforded relatively swift and certain payment of benefits to cure or relieve the effects of industrial injury without having to prove fault but, in exchange, gives up the wider range of damages potentially available in tort.  [Citations.]  The function of the exclusive remedy provisions is to give efficacy to the theoretical ‘compensation bargain.’”  (Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 15-16.)

            Section 3600, subdivision (a), sets forth the terms of the “compensation bargain.”  It states, in relevant part:

            “(a)  Liability for the compensation provided by this division . . . shall, without regard to negligence, exist against an employer for any injury sustained by his or her employees arising out of and in the course of the employment . . . in those cases where the following conditions of compensation concur:  [¶]  . . .  [¶]

            “(2)  Where, at the time of the injury, the employee is performing service growing out of and incidental to his or her employment and is acting within the course of his or her employment.

            “(3)  Where the injury is proximately caused by the employment, either with or without negligence.  [¶]  . . .  [¶]

            “(9)  Where the injury does not arise out of voluntary participation in any off-duty recreational, social, or athletic activity not constituting part of the employee’s work-related duties, except where these activities are a reasonable expectancy of, or are expressly or impliedly required by, the employment. . . .”  (§ 3600, subd. (a), italics added.) Mason v. Lake Dolores GroupE032691 (April 09, 2004) CA4/2 E032691
 

Thomas - Legislative Information on the Internet |Check Your Credit Score
Directory of Medical Dictionaries: Table of Contents | California Injury (Torts) Law
USA Entertainment.US | FederalCriminalProcedure.Com |United Statea News
FederalCriminalProcedure.Com | iLaw Dictionary.Com | Library of Congress
United States Law Consumer Law TITLE PAGE | USA Entertainment.US
iBusiness Center.US | United States Law: Constitutional Law: Constitutions of  The World: TITLE PAGE
California Contracts Law.Com | California Injury (Torts) Law
Phone Directories From Around the World New | California Law Revision Commission 
California Civil Procedure.Com | Federal Civil Procedure.Com