CHARLES J. VACANTI v. State Comp. Ins. Fund

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• applying California’s Workers’ Compensation act and holding that “[i]n determining whether exclusivity bars a cause of action against an employer or insurer, courts initially determine whether the alleged injury falls within the scope of the exclusive remedy provisions”
• \the unabated flow of published decisions clarifying the scope of workers' compensation exclusivity suggests considerable confusion as well as innovative lawyering\ (emphasis in original)
• “[Cjlaims seeking compensation for services rendered to an employee in connection with his or her workers’ compensation claim fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the [Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board].”
• “This concerted effort by insurers to 19 interject themselves into lien claims they did not insure is not a normal part of the claims 20 process.”
• an alleged injury “falls within the scope of the exclusive reinedy provisions” of workers’ compensation if it is “collateral to or derivative of’ the course of employment
• “Together, these 14 provisions establish that the liability of employers and insurers for ‘industrial injury 15 which results in occupational disability or death’ is limited to workers’ compensation 16 remedies.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).