Employee’s Spouse’s loss of Consortium Claim Barred by Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity Rule

The California Supreme Court recently found that an employee's spouse could not recover for loss of consortium in his civil employment action, even considering the "power press" exception to the Labor Code. 

In LeFiell Manufacturing Company v. Superior Court (Watrous), the employee sued his employer for industrial injuries sustained while using a power press in the course and scope of employment. He was able to bring a civil action rather than proceeding in the workers’ compensation arena per the Labor Code Section 4558 “power press” exception which 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.” 

The interesting part of this case, however, turned on the employee's spouse's claim for loss of consortium, also made in the civil action. The California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the spouse’s claim was barred by the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule. The Court reasoned that the “power press” exception applies to the injured employee only, unless injuries are fatal. It provides for a civil remedy to augment an employee’s workers’ compensation benefits but does not take the case outside of the workers’ compensation system. Under workers’ compensation, derivative claims such as loss of consortium remain barred and not an available benefit resulting from an industrial injury.