Previously we reported: No Loss Of Consortium Claim Under Labor Code § 4558. The same case was again before the Court of Appeal.

Where an employee is injured in the course and scope of his or her employment, workers’ compensation is generally the exclusive remedy of the employee and his or her dependents against the employer. (Lab. Code §§ 3600, subd. (a), 3602.)  Labor Code section 4558 authorizes an injured worker to bring a civil action for tort damages against his or her employer where the injuries were “proximately caused by the employer’s knowing removal of, or knowing failure to install, a point of operation guard on a power press,” where the “manufacturer [had] designed, installed, required or otherwise provided by specification for the attachment of the guards and conveyed knowledge of the same to the employer.” About whether or not section 4558 permits an injured worker’s spouse to bring suit for loss of consortium, the California Supreme Court said “under settled principles of workers’ compensation law, the exclusivity rule bars a dependent spouse’s claim for loss of consortium. The employer’s demurrer to the loss of consortium cause of action below therefore should have been sustained.” (Lefiell Manufacturing Co. v. Sup. Ct. (O’Neil Watrous) (2012) 55 Cal.4th 275, [282 P.3d 1242, 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 543].)

The same case was again before the Court of Appeal. Writ Of Mandate Issued After Summary Judgment Denied. This time around, the trial court denied the manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment after concluding there was a triable issue of fact as to whether a door that was removed from a machine operated by plaintiff was a point of operation guard. The appellate court granted extraordinary relief and reversed the order of the trial judge by issuing a writ of mandate, concluding the door that was removed from the machine “is not a point of operation guard as a matter of law. The power press exception [Labor Code section 4558] applies only to those machines using a die to form material by impact or pressure against the material that impart to the material some version of the die’s own shape.” (Lefiell Manufacturing Co. v. Sup. Ct. (O’Neil Watrous) (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 3; August 6, 2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 883, [175 Cal.Rptr.3d 894].)