 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Anderson v. Metalclad Insulation Corp.5/19/1999
prayer is broadly stated to put the parties and WCAB on notice of the scope of relief sought. It is not the same as an allegation of fact, such as an allegation that the plaintiff was suffering from cancer, or some other specific asbestos related injury. (Cf. Magnolia Square Homeowners Assn. v. State Co. Ins. Co. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1049, 1060-1061 [allegation of specific structural defect in prior complaint constitutes evidentiary admission that plaintiff had notice of the alleged defect].) Even if we assume, arguendo, that this prayer for relief should be deemed an evidentiary admission, for the reasons we have explained, nothing in the claim for permanent or temporary disability or any other relief constitutes an admission that Anderson was permanently precluded from performing his regular occupation.
Metalclad relies upon this court's decision in Uram v. Abex Corp., supra, 217 Cal.App.3d 1425, for the proposition that the filing of the workers' compensation claim supports the inference that Anderson was disabled as defined in section 340.2 subdivision (b) at the time he filed the claim. This court did not hold that the mere fact of filing a workers' compensation claim established the date of onset of disability for purposes of triggering the limitations period specified in section 340.2. Moreover, a comparison of the evidence submitted by Metalclad in this case with the evidence in Uram, illustrates the insufficiency of the evidence of disability offered in support of Metalclad's motion for summary judgment.
In Uram, we held that the evidence that plaintiff was disabled consisted of the undisputed fact that Uram, a machinist, had received a disability retirement in 1959, coupled with Uram's deposition testimony and written statements in support of his workers' compensation claim that he had to retire because he was unable to perform his duties, due to his " `Lung problem.' " The defendant, also offered evidence that, from the date of his disability retirement through the present Uram had only obtained intermittent employment as a gardener for three years, ending in 1965. (Uram v. Abex Corp., supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1428-1429, italics added.) We concluded this evidence clearly established that, "the health problems Uram suffered constituted a permanent preclusion from the performance of his regular occupation after 1959, and from any occupation after 1965." (Id. at p. 1431, citing Puckett v. Johns-Manville Corp., supra, 169 Cal.App.3d at p. 1017.)
As we noted in Uram, because of the difference in the meaning of disability in the context of a workers' compensation claim, the mere fact that the plaintiff filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits is insufficient to support the inference that, as of that date he was permanently precluded from performing his regular occupation. In Uram, the defendant met its burden by offering evidence that (1) the plaintiff testified in deposition that he had received a disability retirement in 1959 due to lung problems, and expressly stated in his workers' compensation claim that he was, as of the date of retirement, unable to perform his duties due to lung problems; and (2) since retiring the plaintiff had not obtained work as a machinist, and instead only worked intermittently as a gardener. (Uram v. Abex Corp., supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1431-1432.) By contrast here, the record is devoid of any evidence that as of the date Anderson filed the workers' compensation claim, or at any time more than one year prior to the filing of the complaint, Anderson lost any time from work, or was unable to return to his regular occupation, as a result of the injury described n his workers' compensation claim.
Moreover, as we have ex
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|