Opinion ID: 510306
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: California's Worker Compensation Laws

Text: 40 Finally, Gaylord Brothers contends that Robards' negligent infliction of emotional distress claim is barred by Cal.Labor Code Sec. 3602(a). Section 3602(a) states that: 41 Where the conditions of compensation set forth in Section 3600 concur, the right to recover such compensation is, ... the sole and exclusive remedy of the employee or his or her dependents against the employer,.... 42 Cal.Labor Code Sec. 3602(a)(West Supp.1988). As we have recently observed, whether California's worker compensation laws bar emotional distress claims is an area in which the California law is not entirely clear. See Ortiz v. Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, 852 F.2d 383, 387-388 (9th Cir.1988). 43 The crucial issue here is whether California's worker compensation laws provide the sole and exclusive remedy for an employee's claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress resulting from the termination of the employee's employment when there has been no physical injury or disability. 44 Section 3600 provides that an employer is liable under California's worker compensation law for any injury sustained by his or her employees arising out of and in the course of the employment. Cal.Labor Code Sec. 3600 (West Supp.1988). Section 3602(a) provides that when an injury is compensable under section 3600, recovery under section 3600 is the employee's sole and exclusive remedy. Cal.Labor Code Sec. 3602(a) (West Supp.1988). Thus, the appropriate inquiry is whether Robards' injury is compensable under section 3600. 45 In making this determination, we first look to whether the distress alleged from Robards' termination arose out of and in the course of Robards' employment. See Russell v. Mutual Life Insurance Co., 722 F.2d 482, 493 (9th Cir.1983), rev'd on other grounds, 473 U.S. 134, 105 S.Ct. 3085, 87 L.Ed.2d 96 (1985). Emotional distress caused by employment termination is within the scope and course of the employment relationship. Russell, 722 F.2d at 493; Ankeny v. Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., 88 Cal.App.3d 531, 534, 151 Cal.Rptr. 828, 830 (1979); Gates v. Trans Video Corp., 93 Cal.App.3d 196, 201-03, 155 Cal.Rptr. 486, 492 (1979). 46 However, emotional distress without accompanying physical injury or disability is not compensable under section 3600. See Russell, 722 F.2d at 494 (mental anguish absent any physical injury is not a compensable injury under California's Workmen's Compensation laws); Renteria v. County of Orange, 82 Cal.App.3d 833, 839, 147 Cal.Rptr. 447, 450 (1978) ([w]e are aware of no decisional or statutory authority for the proposition that mental suffering, as such, is a compensable injury) (emphasis in original). Thus, Robards' negligent infliction of emotional distress claim is not barred by the worker's compensation law. 47 Gaylord Brothers argues that a recent California Supreme Court decision dealing with intentional infliction of emotional distress, Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Protection District, 43 Cal.3d 148, 729 P.2d 743, 233 Cal.Rptr. 308 (1987), holds that emotional distress resulting from employer misconduct is a compensable injury under section 3600. It asks us to conclude that Robards' claim is barred. We disagree with Gaylord Brothers' broad reading of Cole. Cole held that California's worker compensation law bars claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress that have resulted in physical injury. 48 The basis of compensation and the exclusive remedy provisions is an injury sustained and arising out of the course of employment ..., and when the essence of the wrong is personal physical injury or death, the action is barred by the exclusiveness clause no matter what its name or technical form if the usual conditions of coverage are satisfied. 49 Id. at 160, 729 P.2d at 750, 233 Cal.Rptr. at 315 (emphasis added). 50 Cole does not affect, and indeed treats as continuing viable authority, prior decisions holding that emotional distress, without physical injury, is not compensable under worker's compensation. See, e.g., id. at 155, 729 P.2d at 747, 233 Cal.Rptr. at 312 (citing to Renteria, 82 Cal.App.3d at 833, 147 Cal.Rptr. at 447). The district court properly submitted Robards' negligent infliction of emotional distress claim to the jury. Hence, we find that each of Gaylord Brothers' contentions on appeal is without merit. 51 AFFIRMED.