Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Covid’

WCAB: Maybe Roommates Can Be Compelled to Sit for Deposition

May 10th, 2023 No comments

Happy Wednesday, dear readers!

Your humble blogger has the misfortune of reliving, frequently and without reason, some of his more awkward moments.  Some as early as my formative years, some more recent.  It’s never a pleasant experience and I would rather not – but awkward is as awkward does. 

Like those awkward memories, COVID19 is going to remain with us, and make us fairly unhappy, for years to come.

When defending a COVID19 case, though, the most obvious argument against compensability is that the exposure and infection occurred outside of the workplace, no?  Given that employees naturally have privacy rights, trying to establish exposure outside of the workplace can be a challenge, certainly.

What better way to get the information about applicant’s non-work activities than to ask those living with applicant?

Well, that is the subject of the panel decision in Labella v. Marathon Petroleum, a panel decision issued by the WCAB late last month.

Applicant alleged injury in the form of COVID19 related illness while employed by defendant.  Defendant then sought to compel the testimony of 3 witnesses who all, as claimed by defendant, lived with applicant.  The petitions alleged the depositions were necessary “to obtain details of [applicant’s] possible exposure to COVID at home.”

Sounds reasonable, no?  If one of the witnesses testifies to coming home with COVID19 from a trip several days before applicant showed his first symptoms, wouldn’t that be relevant to the AOE/COE determination?  Likewise, if no one at home had COVID19 symptoms prior to applicant showing his symptoms, wouldn’t applicant’s counsel be chomping at the proverbial bit to have those witnesses testify under oath and state this fact?

Well, the WCJ denied the petitions, reasoning “this court is unaware of any basis or jurisdiction for compelling a non-party to appear for deposition.”  Defendant then sought removal.

The WCAB granted removal and sent the matter down for further development of the record, but did not reverse the denial of defendant’s petition out of hand.  So, unfortunately, we do not have the fiery and affirmative right to depose family members regarding COVID19 cases.  However, the commissioners did provide some guidance.

The commissioners referred the parties to Labor Code section 5710, which allows the appeals board to cause the depositions of witnesses who need not be parties to the case (“a workers’ compensation judge, or any party to the action or proceeding, may … cause the deposition of witnesses residing with or without the state…”).   The opinion rejects the theory that only the employer’s employee witnesses may be so compelled.

The opinion further notes that the WCJ is empowered to issue protective orders, but that generally the WCJ and the WCAB can order non-party witnesses to sit for deposition.

So, while not definitive or controlling, it does signal that at least 3 WCAB commissioners appear inclined to allow defendants to depose family and co-habitants of COVID19 claimants.

Your humble blogger would add some more food for thought – when we go down this road, we will inevitably run into issues of spousal privilege.  Whether communications between spouses can be offered into testimony, or, more importantly, being called as a witness at all (see Evidence Code 970).  But, we don’t only live with our spouses alone.  Children, roommates, grandparents, parents, etc., do not qualify for the privilege under EC 970. 

Although, hopefully, cases of COVID19 infection become less frequent, and the litigated cases related thereto become less frequent still, we will continue to see these cases crop up now and again.

Till next time, dear readers!

FDA Approves Breathalyzer Covid Test

April 18th, 2022 No comments

Happy Monday, dear readers!  Your humble blogger trusts that the weekend was peaceful and meaningful for his beloved readers.

If you are observing Passover, may your bread-free life pass painfully until the end of the festival.  If you are observing Easter, I hope you find all the eggs you hid and that you will not judge your humble blogger for raiding the clearance aisle for all the Easter candy the stores failed to off-load.  I’m just buying it for … um… the kids! Yeah, that’s the ticket: those Cadbury eggs are just for the kids and totally not for your humble blogger to eat in reckless abandon for his waistline.

Anywho, aside from observing holidays, let’s talk COVID and technology.  More specifically, the FDA has approved a breathalyzer test for COVID19, which reportedly produces results in 3 minutes with a 91% accuracy rate.

As many practitioners did, your humble blogger looked ahead and anticipated the issues that will go to trial over COVID19 and the various vaccine rules.  Is an employee engaged in “serious and willful” misconduct by refusing to vaccinate?  If an employer’s vaccine mandate is the only reason an injured worker is not being returned to modified duty, is the injured worker still entitled to TTD?  Is an employer’s different treatment of unvaccinated employees sufficient to give rise to psyche and stress claims?

Well, perhaps this can be the answer.  Instead of requiring proof of current vaccination status, perhaps an at-work screening for COVID19 positivity is a better solution.  After all, it is now pretty solidly established that the vaccinated can both catch and transmit the disease, as we’ve seen in some recent examples, so wouldn’t it be sounder policy to breath-test all employees as they come to work to ensure no one is bringing COVID19 to work?

This is a device and method worth watching, as it may offer a relatively pain-free solution to the animated (and sometimes violent) debate we’ve seen played out nationally and internationally about the balance of rights and responsibilities in public. 

What do you think, dear readers?

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: ,

Another Shameless Plug…

March 15th, 2022 No comments

Happy Tuesday, dear readers! Your humble blogger is breathing hard trying to recover form his over-indulgence in celebrating Pi day yesterday, and hopefully you got to enjoy as well!

Tomorrow is Wednesday, 3/16 and your humble blogger is giving a webinar presentation with noted colleague H. Douglas Hawkins, Jr., Esq. on the impact of the case of Matilde Ek v. See’s Candies, Inc. and claims handling.

Info and link are below and here’s hoping you will join us!

Please join us for March’s CE webinar!
March 16th – 10:00am
“COVID Update”
A discussion of the See’s Candies decision
and the impact on COVID-19 claims (1.0 CEU – CA Adjuster)

In the case of Matilde Ek v. See’s Candies Inc., the Court of Appeal allowed an employee of See’s Candies Inc. to proceed with her claim for civil tort remedies after she allegedly was exposed to COVID-19 at work and brought it home to her husband. COVID-19 is presenting a new arena of liability for employers and tilts the scales of accepting and settling questionable industrial COVID-19 claims as an economics decision. Managing Partner Gregory Grinberg, Esq. and Senior Associate Attorney H. Douglas Hawkins Jr., Esq. will discuss the impact of the See’s Candies decision and tactics for addressing industrial COVID19 claims with the impact of this decision in mind.

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER!

*If you experience difficulty registering please try to copy and paste the following link into your internet browser (Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox work best):  https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/6774531364777865230

or email Scott@galesutow.com to register.
Categories: Uncategorized Tags: ,