VENTURA – A California appellate court judge has agreed with a plaintiff that the Santa Barbara Superior Court mistakenly found that her wrongful death lawsuit surrounding the work-related death of her husband from COVID-19 complications failed to plead sufficient facts, under the fraudulent concealment exception to the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule.
The California Court of Appeals’ Second District, Division Six judges Tari L. Cody, Arthur Gilbert and Hernaldo J. Baltodano rendered such a judgment on June 17, in favor of plaintiff Maria Chavez and against defendant Alco Harvesting, LLC.
Chavez is the widow of Leodegario, who worked for Alco as a foreman and bus driver. Workers lived at the Hotel Santa Maria at times but were placed in close quarters that violated social-distancing practiced during COVID.
“Alco was aware such placement facilitated the transmission of COVID-19," Cody wrote. "'It was no surprise that a COVID-19 outbreak soon began at the Hotel Santa Maria.’"
The outbreak was known by Alco but not Leodegario Chavez - the company didn't report the outbreak to the health department either. Chavez began feeling sick on June 26, 2020, with symptoms associated with a COVID infection, and he reported it to his supervisors.
In turn, Alco still didn't inform Chavez about the outbreak at the hotel. He tested positive a week later and placed at a Motel 6.
"Decedent waited for medication to arrive, but none did. On July 7, 2020, he died of COVID-19 complications," Cody wrote. "Plaintiff alleged that because of the outbreak, decedent ‘was exposed to COVID-19 and fell ill. Alco’s deliberate concealment of the outbreak and the nature of decedent’s illness resulted in the aggravation of his illness to the point that he was unable to recover and succumbed to the disease.”
The Santa Barbara County trial court sustained Alco’s demurrer to the second amended complaint without leave to amend, leading Chavez to appeal. Chavez contended that second amended complaint “sufficiently pleaded all elements of the fraudulent concealment exception to the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule," and the appeals court agreed.
Exceptions to the rule exist “where the employee’s injury is aggravated by the employer’s fraudulent concealment of the existence of the injury and its connection with the employment…” – consisting of three elements: “(1) The employer knew that the plaintiff had suffered a work-related injury; (2) The employer concealed that knowledge from the plaintiff; and (3) The injury was aggravated as a result of such concealment.” The employer must also possess “actual knowledge” of the injury.
According to Cody, plaintiff’s second amended complaint “fairly apprised Alco of the action’s basis – namely, that Alco knew decedent had contracted COVID-19 from his employment and concealed that knowledge from him, thereby aggravating his illness.”
“As to the knowledge prong, plaintiff alleged decedent contracted COVID-19 because of the outbreak at the Hotel Santa Maria," Cody wrote. "The second amended complaint alleged Alco knew, ‘even before decedent,’ that decedent had contracted COVID-19 by virtue of Alco’s awareness of the outbreak.
"These allegations indicate Alco ‘knew that [decedent] had suffered a work-related injury.’ Like the defendant in Foster, Alco argues the second amended complaint failed to allege actual knowledge. Under Foster, however, plaintiff may plead Alco’s knowledge in ‘general terms.’ Plaintiff did so multiple times in the second amended complaint,” Cody stated.
Alco said the complaint was contradictory as to knowledge because Chavez was aware of his illness before Alco, but the court noted Chavez did not know he had contracted COVID.
And while Alco faulted the second amended complaint for failing to specify information like decedent’s close contact or proximity to the outbreak, Cody said “such specific details are not required given the allegations may be pleaded in general terms.”
“The second amended complaint’s allegations satisfy the second prong of concealment. The pleading alleged Alco failed to report the COVID-19 outbreak to the health department, notify its employees or implement measures to prevent or curb the outbreak. The failure to notify decedent of the outbreak, and that his reported symptoms were that of COVID-19, concealed the nature of his illness," Cody wrote.
“Alco also argues plaintiff does not allege it ‘fraudulently concealed the alleged massive outbreak with the intent to induce decedent to continue working for any benefit.’ This argument fails because the intent to extract more labor is simply not a requirement of the fraudulent concealment exception. The second amended complaint sufficiently pleaded the final prong of aggravation."
The appeals court then reversed the judgment of the Santa Barbara County trial court and remanded the case there, where the trial court is directed to (1) vacate its order granting Alco’s demurrer and (2) enter a new order overruling that demurrer. Additionally, it was ordered Chavez would recover her costs on appeal.
California Court of Appeals, Second District, Division Six case B-329282
Santa Barbara County Superior Court case 22-CV-00331
From the Southern California Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com