The California Supreme Court is scheduled to review a case involving novel issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, including whether an employer can be found liable for a “take-home” case after an employee contracts the virus at work and then gives it to someone in their household.
This spring the Ninth Circuit deferred ruling in the case, Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks; the lawsuit had been dismissed by the district court because of workers’ compensation exclusive remedy rules, which are supposed to preclude lawsuit claims for damages.
The case is being closely watched because of the potential for opening a tort floodgate if employers are found to be responsible for COVID-19 cases that are not contracted by workers on the job.
As stated in the California Labor Code, “Where the conditions of compensation set forth in Section 3600 concur, the right to recover compensation is, except as specifically provided in this section and Sections 3706 and 4558, the sole and exclusive remedy of the employee or his or her dependents against the employer.”
Opening briefs were filed late last month.
The Civil Justice Association of California is looking forward to the state’s high court addressing the issue.
"CJAC is pleased the California Supreme Court has agreed to hear the ‘take-home’ Covid case brought against Victory Woodworks, Inc.,” Kyla Christoffersen Powell, CJAC’s president and CEO, said in an email response to the Northern California Record. “This is a welcome pivot given its decision not to review a similar case earlier this year. We hope to see the High Court reject the appellate court's erroneous theory of liability and decide the case within the confines of the workers' compensation system."
While roughly 30 states have passed liability protections for businesses amid the pandemic, California has not.
“This is an opportunity to provide relief for employers who are still attempting to recover from the effects of the pandemic and continue to experience supply chain and other challenges,” Powell said. “Businesses need predictability and certainty to operate effectively – not more novel liability expansions produced by activist courts.”