Plaintiff's Settlement of his WC Claim Was Not an "Election of Remedies"
Can a plaintiff file a workers' compensation claim and collect a $350,000 settlement - ostensibly on the theory that he was an "employee" injured in the course of his employment on the date of his accident - and then later sue his "employer" in tort on the theory that he wasn't an "employee" after all? Yes, said the Second District Court of Appeal in this case involving the doctrine of "election of remedies." Here's what happened.
Father ("Arnulfo Sanchez Hernandez"), who was an employee of Sorrells Brothers Packing Company ("Packing Company"), was working in a citrus grove while his 17-year-od son ("Sanchez Vasquez"), who was not an employee of Packing Company, was also present. (It is not clear from the opinion why the son was on the jobsite). Sanchez Vasquez was seriously injured when he was struck by a vehicle known as a "goat" - owned by Sorrells Grove Care, Inc. ("Grove Care") and operated by another Packing Company employee ("Ramos"). Evidently not knowing that Sanchez Vasquez was in fact not an employee of Packing Company, his attorney filed a workers' compensation claim for him against Packing Company. (You can see the petition for benefits here). Packing Company and its workers' compensation carrier ("Clarendon") denied the claim on the grounds that Sanchez Vasquez was not its "employee." (You can read the denial here.)
Rebuffed in his attempt to claim workers' compensation benefits, Sanchez Vasquez therefore filed a tort claim against Packing Co., also naming Grove Care and Ramos in the complaint. In its answer - contrary to the position it had taken in the workers' compensation proceedings - Packing Company alleged that it was entitled to workers' compensation immunity because Sanchez Vasquez was its employee. Thereafter, at Packing Company's request, the trial court stayed the tort claim proceedings until the workers' compensation claim was resolved. (Actually, Sanchez Vasquez filed a motion to stay the workers' compensation proceedings until the tort claim could be resolved. That motion was denied by the JCC, whose order you can read here).
Continue Reading...
