California Supreme Court

KING v. COMPPARTNERS, INC.

PLAINTIFF KING USED THE WORKERS COMPENSATION SYSTEM FOR HIS BACK INJURY

Because the court was reviewing the matter after the sustaining of a demurrer, it took the allegations in the complaint to be true.

Plaintiff King injured his back at work in 2008. He experienced pain, anxiety and depression for which he received medication, including psychotropic drugs, since 2013.

THE UTILIZATION REVIEWER DETERMINED THAT THE PSYCHOTROPIC DRUGS WERE NOT MEDICALLY NECESSARY

The Workers Compensation Act provides for a utilization reviewer, a medical doctor acting on the employer’s behalf, to determine if the treating physician’s treatment recommendations are medically necessary. In 2013, a utilization reviewer determined that one of the psychotropic drugs, Klonopin, was unnecessary and decertified the prescription.

PLAINTIFF KING SUED FOR THE SIDE EFFECTS OF STOPPING THE MEDICATION WITHOUT A WEANING PERIOD

According to the complaint, the utilization reviewer did not warn Plaintiff King of the side effects of stopping the medication, nor of the need to be weaned off of it. Plaintiff King suffered seizures as a result of immediately stopping the medication.

Plaintiff King sued the utilization reviewer for professional negligence, among other claims.

THE APPELLATE COURTS SUSTAINED A DEMURRER, BUT FOUND NO PREEMPTION BY WORKERS COMPENSATION

The trial court sustained a general demurrer without leave to amend on the ground of preemption. The appellate court upheld the sustaining of the demurrer. The appellate court stated, however, that leave to amend should have been granted because the utilization reviewer owed a duty of care to Plaintiff King, and it challenged the failure to warn rather than the medical necessity determination.

THE SUPREME COURT FOUND THE CLAIMS PREEMPTED BY WORKERS COMPENSATION

The Supreme Court disagreed. It discussed extensively those provisions of the Workers Compensation Act that preempt, both explicitly and otherwise, claims for damages arising out of workplace injuries.

The court found that the injuries alleged were “collateral to or derivative of” the original back injury because they occurred as a

Read More

Read All Decisions

Craig Byrnes, Editor

As every practitioner of employment law will tell you, employment in California is presumed to be at will. That means that an employee can be hired or fired for any reason or no reason at all, except, of course, for an illegal reason.

True as that is, anyone who’s ever advised an employer, and those of us who litigate against them, will all agree that companies need to be careful about whom they hire. Even though most employees can be fired at will, poor hiring decisions can lead to disaster. A poor employee, say one with a history of sexually harassing those around him, can expose an employer to liability, decrease morale, and distract the company from its basic business.

How much more important, then, is a hiring decision made for a term? In an employment contract with a term included, an employee can only be fired for good cause prior to the term. Common sense would tell anyone to look carefully before hiring, because getting rid of an employee hired for a term before that term is up can be an expensive proposition.

Of course, hiring employers are usually in the driver’s seat. If an employer offers a coveted position and has many applicants, the employer can afford to be choosy. Why risk hiring an applicant who may be qualified, even immensely qualified, if there is any hint of poor work history? Even rumors lingering in an applicant’s background can and should be enough to cause an employer to look elsewhere.

And if the employer is offering a lifetime position, of high prestige and coveted by many, the Congress hiring manager would do right by the country company to minimize its risk and look elsewhere at the barest hint of trouble.

It’s no comment on the applicant’s character, not a passing on the truth or falsity of whatever multiple sexual harassment allegations issues may present themselves about that candidate. There are simply questions, and in a time of national upheaval uncertain economic times, the Congress hiring manager shows important loyalty to the country company by balancing even the strongest qualifications against uncertainty and risk. Certainty and predictability are, of course, important values in the judiciary any profit-making enterprise.

Hiring high-level employees, typically for a term, requires the hiring manager always to keep the company’s best interests at heart. Any such hiring manager unable to do so, who acts too confrontationally with the other hiring managers such that the company’s interests suffer, should find his or her own six year term not renewed at the earliest opportunity.

Read Full Article