Case Number: BC682783 Hearing Date: January 28, 2019 Dept: 3

ERIK PLAHT,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

AIDS PROJECT LOS ANGELES, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: BC682783

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

January 28, 2019

1. Background Facts

Plaintiff, Erik Plaht filed this action against Defendant, AIDS Project Los Angeles (referred to by the parties as “APLA”) for damages arising out of an incident that occurred while Plaintiff was a trainee at Defendant’s facility. Plaintiff alleges a patient became unruly and started kicking Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges Defendant is liable for the incident because Defendant failed to adequately supervise Plaintiff in connection with the incident. The complaint incudes causes of action for general negligence and premises liability.

Plaintiff filed his complaint on 11/08/17. Defendant filed an answer on 2/07/18. There has been no law and motion practice between the parties. At this time, Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings on the complaint.

2. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings, contending Plaintiff’s action is barred by the workers’ compensation exclusivity doctrine. Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing (a) Defendant did not have workers’ compensation insurance at the time of the incident, (b) Defendant told Plaintiff there was general liability insurance but not workers’ compensation insurance in place, and (c) the dual capacity doctrine applies.

a. Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity Doctrine

Ordinarily, an employee’s rights against his or her employer for on-the-job injuries lie solely under the workers’ compensation law. When the “conditions of compensation” are present (Lab.C. §3600), the employer is immune from civil damages liability because workers’ compensation is the injured employee’s “exclusive remedy.” Lab.C. §§3600, 3601, 3602(a)

Workers’ compensation is basically a “no fault” system of redress for work-related injuries—i.e., benefits are paid to injured employees without proof of employer liability. The statutory scheme is intended to provide a “quick, simple and readily accessible method of claiming and receiving compensation.” Marsh & McLennan v. Superior Court (1989) 49 C3d 1, 6; see Claxton v. Waters (2004) 34 C4th 367, 373.

However, if an employer fails to secure compensation payments, an injured employee or his or her dependents may bring an action at law for damages. Lab. Code, §3706.

b. Analysis

i. Threshold Showing that Doctrine Applies

Plaintiff’s complaint, on its face, alleges that Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a marriage and family therapist trainee intern at the time of the incident. Plaintiff was to provide therapy to patients of Defendants under their supervision. See complaint, ¶8. The complaint therefore, on its face, discloses that the workers’ compensation doctrine applies. Pursuant to M.F. v. Pac. Pearl Hotel Mgmt., LLC (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 693, 700, when a complaint discloses, on its face, that it arises out of the employment relationship, a general demurrer (or, by analogy, a motion for judgment on the pleadings) will lie unless the complaint pleads “facts that negate application of the exclusive remedy rule.” Id.

ii. Lack of Workers’ Compensation Insurance Policy

Plaintiff, in opposition to the motion, argues Defendant did not have workers’ compensation insurance in place at the time of the accident. These facts are not pled in the complaint.

If Plaintiff believes Defendant did not have insurance at the time of the incident, Plaintiff must so allege in an amended complaint.

iii. Defendant’s Representations Concerning its Insurance Policy

Plaintiff also argues Defendant told him it had general liability insurance, but not workers’ compensation insurance, in place, after Plaintiff suffered the injuries that form the basis of the lawsuit. The Court is not, at this time, determining what effect allegations that Defendant told him it did not have worker’s compensation insurance would have if Defendant did, indeed, have a policy. These facts are not pled in the complaint. The Court is finding only that the complaint, on its face, shows the workers’ compensation exclusivity doctrine applies, and Plaintiff must attempt to plead around this in an amended complaint.

iv. Dual Capacity Doctrine

Plaintiff also argues the dual capacity doctrine applies. Plaintiff relies on Miller v. King (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1732 and Weinstein v. St. Mary’s Medical Center (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1123 in support of his position. Both cases were decided in contexts where the employer assumed two entirely different and distinct roles and relationships with the plaintiff.

As the Rutter Guide on Personal Injury, §§2:2245, et seq. explains, the “dual capacity” doctrine typically applies in situations where the employee is injured by a product the employer manufactures or the employee is injured by the employer’s negligent treatment of the underlying injury; in the second instance, the employee is typically employed by a hospital or similar institution, and alleges s/he received negligent care and treatment from the hospital after sustaining a work-related injury.

Plaintiff argues Defendant was in a dual capacity because it was training interns and also running a mental health facility. Plaintiff fails to show that this doctrine applies to the facts of this case. Plaintiff fails to show that these are more than merely two facets of the employer-employee relationship in the context of the facts of the case. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff was hired as a trainee and as part of his job provided therapy to patients.

v. Conclusion

Defendant met its initial burden to show the complaint arises out of the employee-employer relationship, such that Plaintiff’s exclusive remedy is workers’ compensation. The motion for judgment on the pleadings is therefore granted. Plaintiff is ordered to file an amended complaint, in compliance with the above discussion, within twenty days. The parties are ordered to meet and confer before Defendant challenges the amended pleading. If Defendant chooses to challenge the amended pleading, the parties must consider the guidance, set forth above, concerning the future pleading challenge.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.