Davis v. Lockheed Corp.

California Court of Appeal Jan 28, 1993 No. B054692Published

Before: Vogel (Miriam A.)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff's personal injury action against his employer was barred by the Workers' Compensation Act because the evidence failed to establish that the employer fraudulently concealed the existence of the injury or its connection to the employment.

Issues

Whether the fraudulent concealment exception to the Workers' Compensation Act exclusivity provisions applies when an employee independently knows of the connection between their illness and workplace exposure.
Whether the employer met its burden of proof for summary judgment by showing no evidence of fraudulent concealment.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Lockheed established by uncontroverted evidence that, since the early 1960’s, Davis knew about the possible health problems arising from exposure to asbestos and the other chemicals used in the course of his work”

[521]

Opinion

VOGEL (Miriam A.), J.

We affirm a summary judgment granted against plaintiff Willie J. Davis in his personal injury action against his former employer, defendant Lockheed Corporation.

Facts

Davis was employed by Lockheed from 1952 to 1985 in a variety of jobs, all of which exposed him to various chemicals, including asbestos. In 1981, Davis began to lose his voice and he consulted his personal physician who, in turn, referred him to a specialist, Sol Silberstein, M.D. Davis told Silberstein that, through his work, he had been exposed to asbestos and other chemicals. In June 1981, a biopsy revealed that Davis had laryngeal cancer. He received radiation therapy and was off work for several months.

When Davis returned to work in November 1981, he told Lockheed’s medical department personnel that he had been “out for cancer of the vocal cords.” But although he believed at that time that his cancer might have been caused by “chemicals or asbestos,” he did not tell anyone at Lockheed about his suspicions and he never refused to work with asbestos or any other chemical. He did, however, complain to his supervisors and to the safety engineer that asbestos was unsafe and was improperly handled by Lockheed’s employees, and he frequently complained about the chemicals.

Davis continued to see Silberstein on a regular basis but was symptom-free between 1981 and 1984. In June 1984, Davis’s symptoms returned. Medical tests disclosed a recurrence of his cancer, and his larynx and vocal cords were removed.

In 1986, Davis filed this action against Lockheed, alleging fraud, negligence and a variety of other theories. Lockheed answered and in 1990 successfully moved for summary judgment on the ground that Davis’s claim was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Lab. Code, § 3601 et seq.)

Davis appeals.

Discussion

Davis contends there is a triable issue of fact concerning his claim for damages for the aggravation of his cancer following his return to work in 1981. We disagree.

Davis v. Lockheed Corp.

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief