EXCLUSIVE REMEDY - School volunteers as employees of school district–Labor Code §3364.5 does not require that the resolution a school district passes to deem volunteers employees of the school district for purposes of entitlement to workers' compensation benefits contain a list of the specific volunteers entitle to such benefits. Michelle M. Salazar v. Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District 10 WCAB Rptr. 10,108 ___Cal.App.4th___

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY - Bunkhouse rule—When an employee is injured while living on the employer's premises, the course of employment requirement of Labor Code Section 3600(a) is satisfied if the employment contract of the employee contemplates, or the work necessity requires, the employee to reside on the employer's premises. (See Aubin v. Kaiser Steel Corp. (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 658.) ___Cal.App.4th___

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY - Bunkhouse rule—Unless the cause of an injury is so remote that it cannot be deemed incidental to, and thus arising out of, the employment, an injury occurring in employer-furnished housing in the course of employment ordinarily arises out of the employment. (Modin v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1931) 211 Cal.2d 90.) ___Cal.App.4th___

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY - Bunkhouse rule—The award of compensation under the bunkhouse rule does not turn on whether the employee is injured on his or her day off, or after work, or while engaged in a purely personal activity, as long as there is some causal connection between the employment and the injury, and the injury is sustained in the course of employment. Marck O. Vaught v. State of California 10 WCAB Rptr. 10,005 ___Cal.App.4th___

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY - As a general rule, an employee who sustains an industrial injury arising out of and in the course of employment is limited to recovery under the workers' compensation system. To be within the scope of employment, the incident giving rise to the injury must be an outgrowth of the employment, the risk of injury must be inherent in the work place, or typical of or broadly incidental to the employer's enterprise. (See Torres v. Parkhouse Tire Service, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 995, 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,267.) Kim C. Jones v. R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility 9 WCAB Rptr. 10,199 ___Cal.App.4th___

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY - Workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy for a housekeeper bitten by the homeowner's dog and bars the personal injury action against the homeowner under Civil Code §3342, a strict liability statute for personal injury caused by dog bites. Rosa Pale v. Sabrina Coble 8 WCAB Rptr. 10,332 ___Cal.App.4th___

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– Intentional torts within exclusive remedy– Intentional torts committed by an employer against an employee in the course of employment are not categorically excluded from the workers' compensation system. The primary inquiry is whether the conduct giving rise to the claim was ordinary employer conduct normally occurring in the workplace or whether the employer stepped outside the boundaries of the compensation bargain and engaged in conduct that cannot be considered a normal part of the employment relationship. (See Fermino v. Fedco (1994) 7 Cal.4th 701.) [In this case, the emotional distress claim related to the manner in which the employer handled the employee's grievance and its refusal to grant a transfer request, which conduct fell squarely within the employment relationship and the workers' compensation exclusive remedy.] William Hogan v. City and County of San Francisco 7 WCAB Rptr. 10,328 ___Cal.App.4th___

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– Injuries caused by unsafe working conditions are compensable solely under workers' compensation, even if the employer recklessly or deliberately failed to correct known safety violations. (See Vuillemainroy v. American Rock & Asphalt, Inc. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1280.) John Moylan v. Tosco Operating Company, Inc. 7 WCAB Rptr. 10,326 ___Cal.App.4th___

REMOVAL– Labor Code §5310– Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board and generally available only when the petitioner has established substantial prejudice or irreparable injury will result if removal is not granted. (See Swedlow, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Smith) (1983) 48 Cal.Comp.Cases 476 [writ denied].) [In this case, the WCJ improperly ordered further development of the medical record. The fact that the applicant had changed attorneys four times and a medical issue was neglected was not a valid reason for developing the record.] Isidro Olivares v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Construction Protective Services, Inc. 7 WCAB Rptr. 10,287 [Writ Denied]

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– Willful and unprovoked physical act of aggression of a co-employee–Labor Code §3601(a)(1) –The exception to the exclusive remedy of workers' compensation when the injury is proximately caused by the willful and unprovoked act of aggression of a co-employee applies when the injured employee proves the other employee had an intent to injure. (See Torres v. Parkhouse Tire Service, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 995, 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,267.) Christian Zuber v. Felipe Valle 7 WCAB Rptr. 10,167

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– Acts in the scope of employment–California no longer follows the traditional rule that an employee's actions are within the scope of employment only if motivated, in whole or in part, by a desire to serve the employer's interests. It is sufficient if the injury resulted from a dispute arising out of the employment. There must be a causal nexus between the tort and the employer's work; the tort must be engendered or arise from the work; the incident leading to injury must be an outgrowth of the employment. (See Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (1995) 12 Cal.4th 291.) Christian Zuber v. Felipe Valle 7 WCAB Rptr. 10,167

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– Labor Code §3602– The WCAB has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes about an employee's right to compensation or the liability of an employer. (See Marsh & McLennan Inc. v. Superior Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1.) This exclusive jurisdiction applies not only to actions against the employer but also to actions against an employer's workers' compensation carrier. Raul Rodriguez v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company 7 WCAB Rptr.10,123

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– Exceptions to exclusive jurisdiction– When the employer or its insurance carrier commits tortious acts independent of their role as a provider of workers' compensation benefits, an employee may maintain a civil court cause of action. (See Unruh v. Truck Insurance Exchange (1972) 7 Cal.3d 616.) Raul Rodriguez v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company 7 WCAB Rptr.10,123

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– An employer's single, unprecedented instance of an intentional unauthorized secret monitoring of or eavesdropping on an employee's private telephone conversation with a customer constituted an invasion of privacy and was not an act within the normal course of employment relationship and the employer's motive in this case violated a fundamental public policy and was therefore not barred by workers' compensation exclusivity. (See, generally, Charles J. Vacanti, M.D., Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (2001) 24 Cal.4th 800, 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,019.) Bradley Fischl v. New Horizons Computer Learning Centers, Inc. 7 WCAB Rptr. 10,072

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– Unlicensed contractor working for apartment building owner– An unlicensed contractor performing work for which a license is required for an apartment building owner is deemed an employee of the apartment house owner, and workers' compensation provides the exclusive remedy. [The exception of Labor Code §3351(d) does not apply because the contractor was hired by the apartment house owner in the course of the owner's trade, business or occupation.] Patricia Jayne Morales-Navarro v. Calvin Gregory 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,340

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– Not a bar to a premises liability claim by injured employees of independent contractor against landowners– Workers' compensation exclusivity precludes injured employee from suing hirers only when the injury arises from the act or omission of the contractor employing the injured worker. In a premises liability action, the claim is that a known pre-existing condition of the property affirmatively contributes to the injury, the Privette doctrine does not bar liability; the rule creates a bar only when the dangerous condition is determined to be the result of the contractor's negligence. (See Sheeler v. Greystone Homes Inc. (3003) 113 Cal.App.4th 908.) Kristopher Cannon v. Ronald W. Burkle 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,247

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– When the misconduct attributed to the employer is actions that are a normal part of the employment relationship, such as demotions, promotions, criticism of work practices, and frictions in negotiations as to grievances, an employee suffering emotional distress causing disability may not avoid the exclusive remedy provisions of the Labor Code by characterizing the employer's decisions as manifestly unfair, outrageous, harassment, or intended to cause emotional disturbance resulting in disability. (See Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Protection Dist. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 148.) Raj Singh v. State Compensation Insurance Fund 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,211

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– The exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act apply to the employer's insurer because Labor Code §3850 defines 'employer' to include 'insurer.' (See Marsh & McLennan, Inc. v. Superior Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1.) The exclusivity encompasses an insurer's conduct involving the delay or refusal to pay benefits even if done intentionally and with full knowledge of the hardship to the injured claimant. (See Mitchell v. Scott Wezel Services, Inc. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1474.) Raj Singh v. State Compensation Insurance Fund 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,211

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– Parent corporation liability– An employer's parent corporation is not responsible for the working conditions of its subsidiary's employees based on the existence of the parent-subsidiary relationship. (See Muniz v. National Can Corp. (1st Cir. 1984) 737 F.2d 145.) The parent corporation may be liable only if it assumes a duty to act by affirmatively undertaking to provide a safe working environment at the subsidiary's workplace. (See Hinkle v. Delavan Industries, Inc. (W.D. Tenn. 1998) 24 F.Supp.2d 819.) Waste Management, Inc. v. Superior Court 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,214

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– Parent corporation liability– Negligently controlling or intentionally mismanaging a subsidiary's budget does not create a duty on the part of the parent corporation to ensure safety or prevent injuries to the subsidiary's employees. Waste Management, Inc. v. Superior Court 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,214

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– Parent corporation liability– If the parent corporation acted and operated as a separate business entity and exercised no control over the employee, the parent corporation is not an "employer" for the purposes of the exclusive remedy provisions of workers' compensation. Waste Management, Inc. v. Superior Court 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,214

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– Parent corporation liability– When a subsidiary corporation has satisfied its obligation to an employee by securing the payment of workers' compensation benefits, the employee cannot hold the parent corporation liable for harm suffered by the employee in the course of employment unless the parent corporation's alleged acts are separate from those of the subsidiary. Waste Management, Inc. v. Superior Court 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,214

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– Farm Labor Contractor's Act– Labor Code §1682– The Farm Labor Contractor's Act (FLCA) does not create an exception to the Workers' Compensation Act, and therefore a farmworker has no private right under the FLCA for physical injuries compensable under the Workers' ompensation Act. (See Ruis v. Cabrera (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1198.) Gilberto Navarette v. Green Valley AG, Inc. 6 WCAB Rtpr. 10,133

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– Injuries caused by unsafe working conditions are compensable solely under workers' compensation, even though the employer may have recklessly or deliberately failed to correct known safety violations. (See Vuillemainroy v. American Rock & Asphalt, Inc. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1280.) Gilberto Navarette v. Green Valley AG, Inc. 6 WCAB Rtpr. 10,133

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– The test for whether an injury arises out of the employment is: If the particular act is reasonably contemplated by the employment, injuries received while performing it arise out of the employment, and are compensable. In determining whether a particular act is reasonably contemplated by the employment, the nature of the act, the nature of the employment, the custom and usage of a particular employment, the terms of the contract of employment, and perhaps other factors should be considered. LaTourette v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 644.) [In this case, the injury-producing activity was not reasonably contemplated by or causally connected to the employment or employment duties.] James Mason v. Lake Dolores Group, LLC. 6 WCAB Rptr. 10,116

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– Power Press Exception– Labor Code §4558– An employee can file a civil action for damages against his employer when the employee's injury is proximately caused by the employer's knowing removal of, or failure to install, a point of operation guard on a power press, and the removal or failure to install is specifically authorized by the employer under conditions known by the employer to create a probability of serious injury or death. A power press is a machine that forms materials by use of a "die," which is defined as a tool that imparts shape to material by pressing or impacting against or through the material by punching, stamping or extruding. (See Rosales v. Depuy Ace Medical Co. (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 279, 2 WCAB Rptr. 10,155.) [In this case, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the machine in question was a power press within the meaning of Labor Code §4558.] Maria Bermudez v. Edco Plastics, Inc. 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,334

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– Labor Code §3600– When the misconduct attributed to the employer is actions that are a normal part of the employment relationship, such as demotions, promotions, criticism of work practices, and frictions in negotiations as to grievances, an employee suffering emotional distress causing disability may not avoid the exclusive-remedy provisions of the Labor Code by characterizing the employer's decisions as manifestly unfair, outrageous, harassment, or intended to cause emotional disturbance resulting in disability. (See Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Protection Dist. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 148.) [In this case, a claim for emotional distress related to the employer's investigation of employee theft was found to be within the exclusive remedy of workers' compensation.] Marlena Palacio v. Longs Drug Stores California, Inc. 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,333

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– If an employer secures insurance for payment of workers' compensation benefits for a residential employee, the employee's exclusive remedy is workers' compensation and the employee does not have a cause of action for damages in a civil action. Philip Travis v. Bruce Choder 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,207

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– Malicious, false accusation of workers' compensation fraud against an applicant is not part of the normal workers' compensation claims process and is not subject to the exclusive remedy of workers' compensation. Freddie Curtis Mosby, Jr. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,207

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– Aggravation of a pre-existing illness, which is the result of a negligent diagnostic testing voluntarily provided by an employer is compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act, regardless of the cause of the pre-existing illness and workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy. (See Wickham v. North American Rockwell Corp. (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 467.) [In this case, the employer required its employees to undergo hearing tests in accordance with the company's internal safety policies. The test results showed the employee was gradually losing hearing in one ear, which was a symptom of a growing brain tumor. The employer failed to have the test results analyzed by a qualified professional, which delayed the diagnosis and required a more radical surgical procedure and resulting complications.] Gary Weber v. United Parcel Service. 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,124

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– Arbitration of union grievance– Workers' Compensation is not the exclusive remedy that would preclude arbitration of a union grievance under the collective bargaining agreement requesting the employee be returned to work and seeking back pay. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1277 v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,110

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– Fraudulent concealment exception–Labor Code §3602(b)(2)– Three conditions are necessary for the fraudulent concealment exception to apply: (1) the employer must have concealed "the existence of the injury;" (2) the employer must have concealed the connection between the injury and the employment; (3) the injury must have been aggravated following the concealment. (See Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Superior Court (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1790.) Darcy M. Jensen v. Amgen, Inc. 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,061

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– Exception to exclusive remedy of workers' compensation– Labor Code §3602(b)(2)– A pleading is sufficient to bring a claim within the exception provided by Labor Code §3602(b)(2), if the pleading alleges in general terms: (1) the employer knew the plaintiff had suffered a work-related injury, (2) the employer concealed that knowledge from the plaintiff, and (3) the injury was aggravated as a result of the concealment. (See Palestini v. General Dynamics Corp. (2002) 99 Cal. App. 4th 80, 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,180.) Angela Encinas v. Catholic Healthcare West, Southern California. 5 WCAB Rptr. 10,043

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– An employer's conduct in investigating a sexual harassment allegation against and employee and ultimately terminating his employment on that ground, even if taken in bad faith, is subject to the exclusivity provisions of the workers' compensation law. (See Accardi v. Superior Court (1993) 17 Cal.App. 4th 341.) Lawrence Moreau v. Direct Express. 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,328

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– Fraud exception– Labor Code §3602(b)(2)– The fraud exception does not apply to claims that the employer merely concealed and failed to correct a dangerous work condition that caused injury to an employee. To establish a claim under the exception, the employee must suffer an injury or disease related to work and the employer must have known about the injury or disease, concealed it from the employee, and actively prevented the employee form receiving medical treatment for it or otherwise aggravated it in some way. (See Ashdown v. Ameron International Corp. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 868, 2 WCAB Rptr. 10,315; Gunnell v. Metrocolor Laboratories Inc. (2001) 92 Cal.App. 4th 710, 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,303.) Consolidated Structural Materials, Inc. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund. 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,308

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– Employee status of workfare participant– An indigent person who is required to work in order to receive general assistance is an employee of purposes of workers' compensation and is barred by the exclusive remedy doctrine from suing the entity to whom the county assigned the person to work for. (See County of Los Angeles v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Conroy) (1981) 30 Cal.3d 391.) Stephen Day Salvation Army. 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,307

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– Securing payment of compensation– Labor Code §3700– If an employer secures payment of compensation by obtaining a workers' compensation insurance policy, the bringing of a civil action is precluded under the exclusivity rule. The fact that the injured worker does not pursue a workers' compensation claim or that payment of workers' compensation benefits are not actually paid is not controlling. (See Pecor v. Norton-Lilly Co. (1931) 111 Cal.App. 241.) Jose Bonilla v. ICM Resources, Inc. 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,294

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– An allegation in a civil action that the injured worker was trained to use, and was injured by, a machine known by the the employer to be unsafe, does not constitute intentional employer misconduct falling outside the compensation bargain. (See Gunnell v. Metrocoler Laboratories, Inc. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 710, 3 WCAB Rptr. 10, 303.) George Contreras v. Atlas Vac Machine Division. 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,293

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– Exclusion base on fraudulent concealment of the existence of injury and its connection with the employment– Labor Code §3602(b) (2)– An employee seeking to state a cause of action against an employer under Labor Code §36029(b)(2) must in general terms plead facts to establish three essential elements: (1) the employer knew that the employee had suffered a work-related injury; (2) the employer concealed that knowledge from the employee; and (3) the injury was aggravated as a result of such concealment. (See Foster v. Xerox Corp. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 306.) Louie Palestini v. General Dynamics Corporation 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,180

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– Labor Code §3602(a)-An employer registered pursuant to the California Farm Labor Contractor Act is entitled to the protection of the Workers' Compensation Act. Homero Ruiz v. Juan Cabrera 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,181

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION– Labor Code §5300(a)– The Workers' Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy and is the exclusive forum for the resolution of any dispute over a right or liability incidental to a claim for workers' compensation benefits. (See Charles J. Vacanti, M.D., Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (2001) 24 Cal.4th 800, 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,019.) [In this case the grievances alleging that the employer was "misinterpreting the Workers' Compensation law" in refusing to pay certain benefits were preempted by the exclusive remedy, while the grievances relating to the resignation of employment as part of a WCAB approved Compromise and Release were not subject to the exclusive remedy.] Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority v. Amalgamated Transit Union Division No. 265. 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,182

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION– Issues regarding workplace safety do not rise to a violation of fundamental public policy and are subject to the exclusive remedy of workers' compensation. (Fermino v. Fedco, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 701). [In this case the employees were killed by a disgruntled former employee and the civil action was based on allegations that the employer did not take the appropriate actions to prevent the attack.] Eliena White v. Department of Transportation. 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,131

EXCLSUSIVE REMEDY OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION– Labor Code §3602– Causes of action for unfair business practices under Business and Professions Code §17200 relating to providing workers' compensation benefits are collateral to and derivative of an injury compensable by the exclusive remedies of the Workers' Compensation Act and defendants' conduct falls within the risks contemplated by the compensation bargain of the Workers' Compensation Act. Donald Ward v. Keenan & Associates. 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,084

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION– Labor Code §3602– The exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act bars employee tort claims against the employer if the conduct is within the parameters of employment and there is no intent to injure or willful physical assault by the employer. Axel Brutz v. Calmat Company 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,084

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION– Off-duty recreational, social or athletic activity– Labor Code §3600(a)(9)– When the employer impliedly requires an employee to participate in off duty activities, injuries sustained by the worker do not arise out of voluntary participation in any off-duty recreational, social or athletic activity not constituting part of the employee's work-related duties as required by Labor Code §3600(a)(9) to establish a statutory exception to workers' compensation exclusivity. Coca Cola Enterprises, et. al. v. Superior Court. 4 WCAB Rptr. 10,022

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION– The exclusive remedy of workers' compensation bars an employee's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The controlling consideration is whether the employer's conduct was a normal part of the employment relationship, such as demotions, promotions, criticism of work practices and frictions in negotiations as to grievances rather than whether it was manifestly unfair, outrageous, harassment or intended to cause emotional disturbance. [This case involved a personal attack completely unrelated to any genuinely employment-related matters.] Chris Fotiades v. Hi-Tech Auto Collision & Painting Services 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,318

WORKERS' COMPENSATION EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– Labor Code §3602(a)– An injury to an employee caused by an employer's deceit and concealment of hazardous substances used in the employment, failure to train, and failure to assure a safe workplace environment remains within the course of employment and is subject to the exclusive remedy of workers' compensation. (See Johns-Manville Products Corp. v. Superior Court (1980) 27 Cal.3d 465.) Ross C. Gunnell v. Metrocolor Laboratories, Inc., Time Warner Entertainment Company 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,303

WORKERS' COMPENSATION EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– Labor Code §3602(a)– When the employer's conduct giving rise to the plaintiff's claim arises out of and in the course of employment, workers' compensation remains the exclusive remedy, notwithstanding an employer's knowing failure to assure that the workplace is safe. (See Vuillemainroy v. American Rock & Asphalt, Inc. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1280.) Ross C. Gunnell v. Metrocolor Laboratories, Inc., Time Warner Entertainment Company. 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,303

EXCEPTION TO EXCLUSIVITY OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION– Willful and unprovoked attack by fellow employee-Labor Code §3601(a)(1)– In a civil action by an employee against another empl9oyee for injury caused by a willful and unprovoked act of aggression, the injured employee must prove that the other employee had an intent to injure. Manual Torres v. Parkhouse Tire Service, Inc. 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,268

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– Labor Code §3602(b)– The WCAB is the exclusive forum for resolving employee claims arising out of or incidental to payment of workers' compensation benefits. Proceedings which in any manner concern the recovery of compensation or any right or liability arising out of or incidental thereto must be instituted before the WCAB. Michelle Hughes v. Argonaut Insurance Company. 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,132

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION– Affirmative defense in civil action-It is the defendant's burden to establish as an affirmative defense that the case is covered by the exclusive remedy of workers' compensation. Unless an employer pleads and proves that the subject matter is exclusively with in the workers' compensation system, a court has subject matter jurisdiction and the employer may not belatedly contend that the exclusive remedy bars the civil action.(See, Doney v. Tambouratgis (1979) 23 Cal.3d 91.) Najib Rebia v. Tadich Grill. 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,037

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY– The exclusive remedy provisions of workers' compensation bar medical providers' abuse of process and fraud claims, but not Cartwright Act or RICO claims relating to the handling of their lien claims. The exclusive remedy bar extends to tortious interference and unfair competition claims based on individual acts of a defendant that established a pattern or- practice of mishandling lien claims but does not bar acts in furtherance of a conspiracy among defendant insurance carriers to mishandle lien claims. Charles J. Vacanti, MD, Inc., et.al., v. State Compensation Insurance Fund, et.al. 3 WCAB Rptr. 10,019