Board Panel Opinion Provides a Succinct Explanation By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board The process for...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 4 April 2024 A Report of En Banc and Significant Panel Decisions of the WCAB and Selected Court Opinions of Related Interest, With a Digest of WCAB Decisions...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Several months ago, an article in LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation...
By William Tappin, Esq., Law Offices of Tappin & Associates, Sierra Madre, CA There has been a lot of confusion with respect to whether ERISA preempts state laws regarding numerous programs, including...
By Thomas A. Robinson, co-author, Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law Editorial Note: All section references below are to Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, unless otherwise indicated...
The Supreme Court of California, in a split decision, held that in-home caregivers may not maintain civil actions against their Alzheimer’s patients if, because of the sometimes unruly nature of the patients, the caregiver is assaulted and injured in the course of the employment. Acknowledging that the rule already applied to limit institutional caregivers who were injured by Alzheimer’s patients, the divided court applied the same sort of legal theory used to bar veterinarians (or their employees) from pursuing civil actions against dog owners where the vet or employee is bitten by the canine. Noting further that the veterinarian rule had its origins in the so-called, firefighter’s rule, the majority said it was well settled that no duty is owed to protect firefighters or veterinarians from the very dangers they are hired to confront. The majority also stressed that its ruling was consistent with the strong public policy against confining the disabled in institutions; if liability were imposed for caregiver injuries in private homes, but not in hospitals or nursing homes, the incentive for families to institutionalize Alzheimer’s sufferers would increase. Workers’ compensation, not tort recovery, is the appropriate means of compensating hired caregivers for injuries caused by Alzheimer’s patients, said the majority.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is a leading commentator and expert on the law of workers’ compensation.
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis
See Gregory v. Cott, 2014 Cal. LEXIS 5460 (Aug. 4, 2014)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 110.08
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see http://www.workcompwriter.com/divided-california-supreme-court-says-in-home-caregivers-may-not-sue-alzheimers-patients-for-injuries/
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.