 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bermudez v. Edco Plastics11/12/2003
Maria Bermudez sued her employer, Edco Plastics, Inc. (Edco) after suffering a severe injury operating a machine at work. She contended that because the machine was a "power press" within the meaning of Labor Code section 4558, the exclusive remedy of worker 's compensation did not apply. (Unless otherwise noted, subsequent statutory references are to the Labor Code.) The trial court granted summary judgment for Edco, finding that the machine did not meet the statutory requirements of a power press. We disagree and find there are triable issues of material fact regarding whether the machine was a power press, and therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.
I. FACTS
On March 24, 1999, Bermudez was employed by Edco. While operating a machine, she was severely injured, suffering permanent injuries to her right hand, including the amputation of one finger and the partial amputation of another. After surgery, she reported pain in her wrist and hand, weakness, numbness and stiffness in her fingers, and depression as a result of her injuries.
The machine Bermudez was operating at the time of the accident was a stamping press. At the time of the accident, the machine was being used to apply color to license plate frames. The stamping press operated by using heat, pressure and time to apply color to the frame. A lower die held the frame in place while an upper die pressed colored film to the frame to transfer the color and impart the new finish. According to Bermudez's expert, " he hot stamping process uses heat and high pressure to reform the workpiece surface and to simultaneously transfer and bond the colored pigment from a carrier film to the workpiece surface."
On March 24, 2000, Bermudez filed a lawsuit against the manufacturers and installers of the machine, Franklin Manufacturing Company, Kensol-Franklin, Kensol-Olsenmark, Inc. and Fabco Air, Inc. The complaint alleged strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. In June 2001, Bermudez filed a stipulation to amend her complaint to name Edco in place of Doe 101. In October 2001, she sought and received leave to file an amended complaint, alleging the machine that caused her injury was a power press within the definition of section 4558. Edco unsuccessfully challenged the pleadings and its joinder via the Doe amendment procedure.
Edco subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, advancing two arguments: First, that the subject machine was not a power press as defined by the Labor Code, and second, that Bermudez's claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The court accepted the first argument and rejected the second, and granted Edco's motion on the ground that the machine was not a power press.
After Edco's motion was granted, Bermudez settled her claims against the remaining defendants, Franklin Manufacturing Company, Kensol-Franklin, Kensol-Olsenmark, Inc. and Fabco Air, Inc. Bermudez now appeals the judgment in Edco's favor.
II. DISCUSSION
Standard of Review
This court reviews de novo the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment. (Hersant v. Department of Social Services (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 997, 1001.)
" he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact." (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) "A prima facie showing is one that is
Page 1 2 3 4 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|