 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Valles v. Health Net of California10/12/2005
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 Elizabeth Valles, an accounts payable clerk, appeals a summary judgment granted to defendant Health Net of California (Health Net) on her tort claims for personal injuries she sustained while she was working for Health Net. On appeal, Valles contends the trial court erred in finding Health Net was her employer as a matter of law and in ruling she was statutorily barred from bringing a tort action against Health Net. We agree with the trial court that Valles was an employee of both Health Net and Act 1 Personnel Services (Act 1), a temporary employment agency, and pursuant to the "special relationship" doctrine, she was precluded from pursuing a personal injury claim against either employer. Based on the exclusivity provisions of the workers' compensation scheme, we therefore affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Valles began working as a temporary clerical worker for Act 1 in February 2000. Act 1 paid her wages and benefits, including workers' compensation insurance. She accepted an assignment to work for Health Net as an accounts payable clerk, earning $12 per hour. Tina Canupp, a Health Net employee, gave Valles her daily assignments and supervised her work flow. Health Net provided a work space, a computer, and the necessary office supplies.
On April 28, 2000, Valles tripped on some duct tape that had been used to secure mats to the lobby floor in the Health Net building. She seriously injured her knee in the fall. Valles filed a workers' compensation claim through Act 1's carrier and received benefits. She thereafter filed a claim for premises liability against the owner of the building and later amended her complaint to add Health Net.
Having ruled on various evidentiary objections raised by both sides, the trial court granted Health Net's motion for summary judgment. Relying on Santa Cruz Poultry, Inc. v. Superior Court (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 575, 578-579 (Santa Cruz Poultry), the court found that Health Net exercised sufficient control, supervision, and direction over Valles's daily assignments to create a special employment relationship. The facts, according to the court, demonstrated that Valles had a "dual relationship" with both Health Net and Act 1. The court concluded that the exclusivity provisions of the workers' compensation system barred Valles's claim against Health Net, one of her employers.
We review the trial court's ruling on summary judgment de novo. (Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 476; Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 860.) The defendant, as moving party, must conclusively negate an element of the plaintiff's cause of action or establish an affirmative defense as a matter of law, thereby dispensing with the need for a trier of fact. (Flait v. North American Watch Corp. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 467, 474.)
DISCUSSION
I.
As temporary employment agencies have proliferated, the question arises whether an employee is employed by the temporary employment agency, the business that provides work, or both. Valles insists she was employed by Act 1, but she fails to acknowledge that she may also have been employed by Health Net under what has been characterized as "the special relationship" doctrine. "An employee may have more than one employer for purposes of workers' compensation, and, in situations of dual empl
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|