The doctor was also unaware of any studies that demonstrated a contributory effect of small levels of Amitriptyline to death, (WCAB record, p. 159, 33:6-7). An injured worker bears the burden to put forth sufficient evidence to show that a claimed injury was industrially related based on reasonable medical probability. (Lab. Code, § 3600(a)(3); Rosas v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692 [20 Cal. Rptr. 2d 778; 58 Cal.Comp.Cases 313]). Again, to be substantial evidence, a medical opinion must be "reasonably probable" and not merely "possible."

Plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim fails because it is barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity. Cal. Lab. Code, § 3600 et seq.; see, e.g., Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 25 (“Even if such conduct may be characterized as intentional, unfair or outrageous, it is nevertheless covered by the workers’ compensation exclusivity provisions.”).

In other words, testing of each home will be required to determine if there are increased VOC levels above what DTSC deemed safe, and then other 9 Because the physical exposure subclass includes Refinery workers, another individualized issue is whether workers’ compensation bars tort recovery for those employees and contractors. See, e.g., Cal. Lab. Code §§ 3600, 3602; SeaBright Ins. Co. v. U.S. Airways, Inc., 52 Cal. 4th 590, 594 (2011). It was partly for this reason (differing duties and obligations owed to employees/contractors versus members of the public) that another judge declined to find this action related to a single-plaintiff case filed by an independent contractor relating to the February incident. See Dkt. 18. Case 2:17-cv-02477-DSF-SK Document 150 Filed 10/10/18 Page 17 of 34 Page ID #:7180 10 DEFS.’ OPP. TO CLASS CERT. MOTION CASE NO. 2:17-CV-02477-DSF (SKx) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 potential sources will need investigation.

Subject to limited statutory exceptions [not applicable here], the workers’ compensation Case 2:17-cv-04496-AB-PLA Document 8-1 Filed 06/23/17 Page 13 of 16 Page ID #:235 10 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO DEFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLTF’S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FRCP RULE 12(b)(6) FPDOCS 32998444.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 system is the only remedy available to employees suffering injuries “arising out of and in the course of employment.” California Labor Code §§ 3600-3602, 5300. It is “the sole and exclusive remedy of the employee…against the employer.”

When an injured employee’s claims are barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of Labor Code §§ 3600 et seq., his or her spouses’ claims for loss of consortium are also barred.

The WCA provides the “sole and exclusive remedy of the employee” for injuries sustained in the workplace. See Cal. Lab. Code §§ 3600(a), 3601, 3602(a), 5300. The California Supreme Court has repeatedly held that employee injuries stemming from even intentional employer misconduct exclusively must be remedied through the WCA.

Erhart's Claim For Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Is Preempted By The Exclusivity Of The Workers' Compensation Act Plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress fails as a matter of law because the California Workers' Compensation Act ("WCA") provides the "sole and exclusive remedy of the employee" for injuries sustained in the workplace. See Cal. Lab. Code §§ 3600(a), 3601, 3602(a), 5300. The California Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this principle, holding that employee injuries stemming from even intentional employer misconduct such as whistleblower retaliation may not be the subject of a civil action, and a plaintiff's exclusive remedy is found under the WCA.

The exclusive remedy provision of the California Workers’ Compensation Act bars Plaintiff’s negligent infliction claim because it preempts an employee’s tort claims arising out of the employment relationship. Cal. Labor Code § 3600 et seq.; Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Protect. Dist., 43 Cal. 3d 148, 154 (1987); Greenwald v. Bohemian Club, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44055, at *20 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2008) (“[t]he clear majority of decisions have held that employee claims alleging negligent conduct of the employer are preempted by workers’ compensation.

) (2) CompPartners' General Demurrer CompPartners filed a general demurrer in responseto plaintiffs’ original complaint (AA 0019-0043) arguing that the causes of action essayed in the Kings’ complaint were wholly and inescapably preempted by the exclusivity provision of California's Workers’ Compensation statutes. (California Labor Code section 3600, subd. (a.) (AA 0020:5-6; Id. 0028:15-0032:20.

In addition, this claim is barred as a matter of law because workers’ compensation remedies provide the exclusive remedies for such negligence claims alleged against an employer. See Cal. Lab. Code § 3600, 3602; Fermino v. Fedco, Inc., 7 Cal.4th 701, 713-14 (1994) (injuries caused by employer negligence are compensated exclusively under the workers’ compensation system); Arendell v. Auto Parts Club, 29 Cal. App. 4th 1261, 1264 (Cal Ct. App. 1994) (same); see also Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 408.001(a); In re Texas Mut.