 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Taylor v. H & C Disposal Company3/11/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Plaintiff David Taylor appeals the judgment of dismissal entered in his action against his employer, H & C Disposal Company ("H & C"), for injuries sustained during the course of his employment. Because plaintiff met his prima facie burden of establishing that H & C failed to maintain workers' compensation insurance covering plaintiff's injury, we reverse the judgment.
FACTS
According to the complaint, plaintiff was injured at his workplace on July 10, 2000, when a forklift operated by a fellow employee, Manuel Arellano, ran over his foot, crushing it. Plaintiff filed a claim with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board ("WCAB") against H & C. H & C failed to respond to the claim or to a notice of deposition of the custodian of records of H & C and a demand for the production of its records. Plaintiff learned that H & C had failed to maintain workers' compensation insurance as required by law. Accordingly, plaintiff elected to file the instant action for damages in Superior Court, as authorized by Labor Code section 3706.
Plaintiff's complaint contained two causes of action against H & C: the first alleged general negligence in allowing a forklift to run over him, while the second alleged that defendant unlawfully failed to maintain workers' compensation insurance and was therefore presumptively negligent pursuant to Labor Code section 3701, 3706, and 3708. Plaintiff's co-worker, Manual Arellano, was also named as a defendant with respect to the first cause of action.
On March 7, 2001, the complaint was served on defendant H & C. A separate Statement of Damages was served on H & C on May 10, 2001. On July 31, 2001, no responsive pleading having been filed, plaintiff requested entry of default, which was entered the same day.
The court issued an order to show cause re completion of default and set a hearing on the matter for September 24, 2001. The court ordered plaintiff to submit all evidence in support of the requested default judgment prior to the hearing date. Plaintiff submitted this evidence and the show cause order was discharged on September 28, 2001.
On October 26, 2001, the court denied without prejudice the motion for entry of default judgment on the grounds that no admissible evidence had been presented to show that H & C did not have workers' compensation insurance. The court entered a default judgment against Mr. Arellano and set a new hearing date of November 27, 2001 for plaintiff's motion that a default judgment be entered against H & C.
At the second hearing, plaintiff submitted further evidence in the form of a declaration of counsel and accompanying exhibits. Among the exhibits was a letter from the Workers' Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau indicating that H & C maintained a certain numbered insurance policy issued by Casualty Reciprocal Exchange for the period September 24, 1999 through March 14, 2000; a letter from an insurance broker indicating that H & C's workers' compensation insurance had been cancelled on March 14, 2000 for nonpayment; and a letter from a medical group providing care to plaintiff indicating that plaintiff's medical bills had not been paid by any party. The court ruled that this evidence was insufficient to establish that plaintiff was entitled to proceed against
Page 1 2 3 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|