 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Vasquez v. Pandol Bros.10/20/2005
INTRODUCTION
Appellant/plaintiff Juan A. Vasquez (plaintiff) was injured on the job by a tortfeasor who was employed by another company. Plaintiff received workers' compensation benefits from his employer's carrier based on a stipulated permanent disability rating of 25 percent. Plaintiff also filed an action for negligence and personal injury damages against the tortfeasor and his employer, defendant/respondent Pandol Brothers, Inc. (defendant). The workers' compensation carrier for plaintiff's employer filed a lien in the action against any damages plaintiff recovered.
On the first day of the negligence trial, plaintiff requested to introduce the stipulated workers' compensation disability rating of 25 percent as evidence of his loss of earning capacity, and argued it was admissible pursuant to Labor Code section 3855. Defendant objected because the percentage was reached as the result of a stipulation between plaintiff and his employer's carrier, and defendant was not part of the workers' compensation proceedings. The trial court denied plaintiff's request to introduce the disability rating but held plaintiff could prove his loss of earning capacity through direct evidence, such as expert testimony and the reports of his treating physicians. Plaintiff declared the court's ruling made any further pursuit of the civil action a waste of money and resources, and asked for judgment to be entered against him to expedite an appeal. Defendant objected and announced it was ready for trial. The trial court granted plaintiff's request and entered judgment against him.
On appeal, defendant contends that plaintiff cannot seek appellate review because defendant never stipulated to the judgment. Plaintiff contends the instant matter is appealable, and the trial court improperly excluded the permanent disability rating in violation of section 3855.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff was employed as a laborer by Bear Creek Production Company in Kern County. State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) was the workers' compensation carrier for Bear Creek. On December 11, 2001, plaintiff, while engaged in the course and scope of his employment, was injured by an employee of defendant Pandol Brothers, Inc. The parties' briefs state that plaintiff was injured when he was run over by a forklift driven by defendant's employee. The record also infers that at some point, plaintiff filed a workers' compensation claim against Bear Creek and SCIF.
On November 20, 2002, plaintiff filed a complaint for personal injury in the Superior Court of Kern County against defendant, and alleged two causes of action. The first cause of action was for general negligence, and alleged that defendant negligently and unlawfully owned, maintained, managed, operated, and entrusted their vehicle (presumably the forklift) to their employee, proximately causing plaintiff's injuries and damages. The second cause of action alleged negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle, in that defendant owned the motor vehicle (again, presumably the forklift), employed the person who operated it, entrusted that person with it, and that person's acts were negligent and the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries and damages. Plaintiff alleged he suffered loss of wages, hospital and medical expenses, general damages, and loss of earning capacity, and prayed for compensatory damages and other damages according to proof. Plaintiff was represented by the Law Offices of Ramin Soofer in Los Angeles.
The WCAB Stipulation
On or about December 17, 2002, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued "Stipulations with Request for Award" in the workers' compen
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|