 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hines v. Thyssen Elevator Corp.2/20/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
While at work on July 6, 1998, Anthony Hines was stuck in an elevator and allegedly injured. One year and one day later he filed a complaint for personal injuries against Thyssen Elevator Corporation.
Thyssen successfully moved for summary judgment on the ground that Hines' complaint was barred by the one year statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Hines appeals the summary judgment, claiming the statute of limitations was equitably tolled while he pursued a workers' compensation claim against Contra Costa County. We affirm the entry of judgment for Thyssen, because there was no tolling under these circumstances.
Appellant relies on a single case, Elkins v. Derby (1974) 12 Cal.3d 410 (Elkins), to support his contention that the statute of limitations was tolled as to his personal injury claim against Thyssen while he pursued a workers' compensation action against Contra Costa County. In Elkins, the plaintiff first pursued a workers' compensation claim against defendants, whom he believed were his employers. Several months later the workers' compensation referee determined that plaintiff had not been an employee at the time of his injury. Approximately one month later, and more than one year after his injury, plaintiff filed a personal injury action against the same defendants, seeking to recover for the same injury. (Id. at p. 413.) The Supreme Court held that Elkins' personal injury action was not barred by the one year statute of limitations because the statute was equitably tolled while he pursued his compensation claim. (Id. at p. 412.)
The court articulated several reasons for allowing tolling under the circumstances of that case. First, it noted that tolling would not interfere with the primary purpose of the statute of limitations, namely, " `prevent surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared.' " (Elkins, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 417.) This was so because the " efendants' interest in being promptly apprised of claims against them in order that they may gather and preserve evidence is fully satisfied when prospective tort plaintiffs file compensation claims within one year of the date of their injuries." (Id. at pp. 417-418.) The court also pointed out that a civil claim, even if filed, would normally not move forward until a denial of workers' compensation benefits. (Id. at p. 417. fn. 4.) The court also sought to avoid "the inequity that a duplicative filing requirement might work upon an injured party," the "inefficient, awkward and laborious" nature of such duplication, and the inevitable assertion of "mutually inconsistent" propositions in different tribunals. (Id. at pp. 419-420.)
These reasons were all grounded upon the critical fact that the respondents in the workers' compensation case and the defendants in the civil action were the same. Notice of the workers' compensation action apprised the defendants of Elkins' claims against them, thereby giving them an opportunity to gather and preserve evidence in the event a civil action followed. A civil claim against them would have been precluded unless and until workers' compensation benefits were denied. And the claims against the same entity in two forums would have been duplicative and potentially inconsistent. None of these con
Page 1 2 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|