ABTL Report - Fall 2026 Edition - Flipbook - Page 18
ABTL - Los Angeles
Fall 2026
Overview of the Workers’ Compensation System...continued from Page 17
Labor Code section 5903, within 20 days after the service
of any 昀椀nal decision by a workers’ compensation judge
(WCJ) any person aggrieved by the decision may petition for
reconsideration by the WCAB. The petition for reconsideration
must be on one of the following broadly worded grounds:
(1) the appeals board or WCJ acted without or in excess of
its powers, (2) the decision was procured by fraud, (3) the
evidence does not justify the 昀椀ndings of fact, (4) petitioner
has discovered new evidence material to the case, which he or
she could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and
produced at the hearing, (5) the 昀椀ndings of fact do not support
the decision. (Id., §5903, subds. (a)–(e).)
(3) the hirer failed to warn the contractor. (Ibid.) In Gravelin
v. Satter昀椀eld (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1209, homeowners hired
DISH Network to install a satellite dish. (Id. at p. 1212.) DISH
outsourced the job to Linkus Enterprises, Inc. (Id. at p. 1217.)
Linkus sent an employee to install the dish at the homeowners’
property. (Ibid.) While installing the dish, the employee
fell when he attempted to access the roof using a small roof
extension located between the house and carport. (Ibid.) The
employee brought a civil action against the homeowners.
(Ibid.) The court held the concealed hazard exception did not
apply because the hazard—the danger of climbing on the roof
extension—was open and obvious. (Ibid.) It was clear that the
roof extension was not 昀椀t for a person to stand on. (Ibid.) If an
injury does not fall into either the “retained control” exception
or the “concealed hazard” exception, the exclusive remedy
provision—through the Privette doctrine—bars a civil suit by
an independent contractor’s injured employee against the hirer.
If the WCAB denies reconsideration, the aggrieved party
may within 45 days petition for a writ of review in the
California Court of Appeal under Labor Code section 5950.
(Nelson & Sloan v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1978) 79 Cal.
App.3d 51, 54.) If the Court of Appeal 昀椀nds such a petition
has potential merit after reviewing the parties’ brie昀椀ng (often
including brie昀椀ng by the WCAB), it can issue a writ of review,
set the case for oral argument, and issue an appellate decision.
VI. Appellate remedies from trial court rulings regarding
workers’ compensation exclusivity vary depending on
when and how the trial court rules.
To conclude, the workers’ compensation system provides an
expeditious vehicle for compensating injured employees while
limiting employer liability. Understanding the basic principles
underlying the Act, the limits of its application, and how it
intersects with the tort system is critical for the general civil
practitioner.
Trial court rulings regarding the af昀椀rmative defense of
workers’ compensation exclusivity often arise in the context of
demurrer, a motion for judgment on the pleadings, or a motion
for summary judgment. If the trial court rules that exclusivity
does not apply and that the action can proceed to trial, the
employer’s best option may be to 昀椀le a writ petition. If that
is summarily denied, the employer can then raise the defense
at trial and, if necessary, on appeal from an adverse judgment.
Brad Pauley is a partner at Horvitz & Levy LLP
Emma Wine an appellate fellow at Horvitz & Levy LLP
VII. Within the workers’ compensation system, a party
must seek reconsideration from the WCAB; if denied the
party may petition the California Court of Appeal for a
writ of review.
Appellate remedies relating to exclusivity work differently
within the workers’ compensation system, however. Under
18
