Hendy?v.?Losse?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?723?,?1?Cal.Rptr.2d?543;?819?P.2d?1
[No.?S018325.?Nov?18,?1991.]JOHN?HENDY?et?al.,?Plaintiffs?and?Appellants,?v.?GARY?LOSSE?et?al.,?Defendants?and?Respondents.
(Superior?Court?of?San?Diego?County,?No.?603318,?William?C.?Pate,?Judge.)
(Opinion?by?Baxter,?J.,?expressing?the?unanimous?view?of?the?court.)
COUNSEL
Howarth?&?Smith,?Don?Howarth?and?Barbara?Gregg?Glenn?for?Plaintiffs?and?Appellants.
Ault,?Deuprey,?Jones,?Danielson?&?Gorman,?Michael?J.?Grace,?Martin?E.?Costello,?Thelin,?Marrin,?Johnson?&?Bridges,?Curtis?A.?Cole,?William?F.?Holbrook,?Steven?J.?Bernheim,?Luce,?Forward,?Hamilton?&?Scripps,?Richard?R.?Spirra,?Lawrence?J.?Kouns?and?Nathan?S.?Arrington?for?Defendants?and?Respondents.
Fred?J.?Heistand?as?Amicus?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Defendants?and?Respondents.
OPINION
BAXTER,?J.
Review?was?granted?in?this?matter?to?determine?the?effect,?if?any,?of?a?1982?amendment?of?Labor?Code?section?3602,fn.?1?on?the?right?of?a?person?who?suffers?an?industrial?injury?to?sue?a?coemployee?physician?whose?treatment?allegedly?aggravated?the?injury.?The?Court?of?Appeal?held?that?while?section?3602,?as?amended,?no?longer?permits?actions?against?a?physician?employer?under?the?”dual?capacity”?doctrine,?a?coemployee?action?may?be?maintained?under?section?3601.
We?disagree.?While?the?Court?of?Appeal?was?correct?in?its?conclusion?that?section?3601?alone?governs?the?right?of?an?employee?to?seek?damages?for?industrial?injuries?caused?by?a?coemployee,?the?immunity?granted?coemployees?by?section?3601?bars?this?medical?malpractice?action?against?Gary?Loose,?M.D.,?because?he?was?acting?within?the?scope?of?his?employment?when?the?conduct?complained?of?occurred.
I?Background
Insofar?as?they?are?relevant?to?plaintiff’s?cause?of?action?against?defendant?Losse?for?medical?malpractice?and?thus?to?the?issue?before?the?court,?the?allegations?of?the?complaint?reflect?the?following:fn.?2
Plaintiff?John?Hendy?suffered?injury?to?his?right?knee?on?August?11,?1986,?while?playing?in?a?regular?season?football?game?as?an?employee?of?the?San?[54?Cal.3d?728]?Diego?Chargers?Football?Company?(Club).?He?was?treated?for?that?injury?by?defendant?Losse,?who?was?employed?as?a?Club?physician.?As?a?condition?of?his?continued?receipt?of?salary?and?medical?care?at?the?expense?of?his?employer,?plaintiff?was?required?to?consult?the?Club?physician.
Defendant?Losse?examined?plaintiff?pursuant?to?his?employment?by?the?Club,?and?advised?plaintiff?to?continue?playing?football.?From?May?11,?1987,?and?continuing?to?September?1987,?defendant?Losse?negligently?diagnosed?and/or?treated?plaintiff?and?advised?plaintiff?to?continue?playing?football.?On?or?about?May?28,?1987,?plaintiff?suffered?another?injury?to?his?right?knee?during?a?training?session.?He?again?consulted?Dr.?Losse,?and?defendant?Losse?again?advised?plaintiff?to?continue?playing?football.?Dr.?Losse?lacked?the?knowledge?and?skill?necessary?to?properly?diagnose?and?treat?plaintiff’s?condition?or,?although?aware?of?the?condition,?advised?plaintiff?to?continue?to?play?football,?with?the?result?that?plaintiff?suffered?irreparable?and?permanent?injury?to?his?right?knee.fn.?3?On?or?about?September?8,?1987,?when?he?consulted?a?physician?who?was?not?employed?by?the?Club,?plaintiff?discovered?that?the?cause?of?his?injuries?was?defendant’s?failure?to?properly?diagnose?and?treat?his?condition.
Defendant?demurred?to?the?cause?of?action?for?medical?malpractice?on?the?ground?that?plaintiff’s?exclusive?remedy?for?his?employment-related?injury?was?within?the?workers’?compensation?system.?In?support?of?the?demurrer?defendant?asked?that?the?court?take?judicial?notice,?pursuant?to?Code?of?Civil?Procedure?section?430.30?and?Evidence?Code?section?452,?of?both?the?National?Football?League?employment?contract?and?the?collective?bargaining?agreement?between?the?league’s?management?council?and?the?National?Football?League?Players?Association,?both?of?which?governed?plaintiff’s?employment.
The?collective?bargaining?agreement?included?a?provision?outlining?the?players’?right?to?medical?care?and?treatment,?and?made?the?cost?of?medical?[54?Cal.3d?729]?services?to?be?rendered?by?Club?physicians?the?responsibility?of?the?Club.?The?contract?between?plaintiff?and?the?Club?provided?that?plaintiff?would?receive?”such?medical?and?hospital?care?during?the?term?of?this?contract?as?the?Club?physician?may?deem?necessary?….”?The?contract?between?defendant?and?the?Club?is?not?part?of?the?record.
Plaintiff?opposed?the?demurrer?on?two?grounds-(1)?defendant?was?acting?in?a?dual?capacity?when?he?diagnosed?and?treated?plaintiff,?and?(2)?the?action?was?permitted?under?subdivision?(b)(2)?of?section?3602,?which?permits?an?action?at?law?against?an?employer?for?damages?proximately?caused?by?aggravation?of?a?work-related?injury?if?the?”injury?is?aggravated?by?the?employer’s?fraudulent?concealment?of?the?existence?of?the?injury?and?its?connection?with?the?employment?….”
The?trial?court?sustained?the?demurrer?without?leave?to?amend,?ruling?that?a?1982?amendment?of?section?3602?made?workers’?compensation?plaintiff’s?exclusive?remedy?even?if?a?dual?capacity?situation?existed,?and?that?the?complaint?failed?to?state?facts?to?establish?concealment?of?either?the?injury?or?its?relation?to?plaintiff’s?employment.?The?Court?of?Appeal?held?that?because?section?3602?applies?only?to?lawsuits?against?employers,?its?limitation?on?use?of?the?dual?capacity?doctrine?applied?only?to?actions?against?employers?and?had?no?impact?on?an?injured?employee’s?right?to?sue?a?coemployee.fn.?4
II?Development?of?the?Dual?Capacity?Doctrine
Section?3600?establishes?the?conditions?under?which?an?employer’s?liability?for?compensation?established?by?the?Workers’?Compensation?Act?is?in?lieu?of?any?other?liability?of?the?employer?to?the?employee?for?an?injury?suffered?on?the?job.fn.?5?Section?3602?provides?in?turn,?with?exceptions?not?relevant?here,?that?when?compensation?is?payable?under?section?3600,?the?right?to?recover?[54?Cal.3d?730]?compensation?is?”the?sole?and?exclusive?remedy?of?the?employee?or?his?or?her?dependents?against?the?employer.?…”?A?parallel,?but?not?identical,?exclusive?remedy?provision,?section?3601,?prohibits?actions?against?coemployees?for?injuries?they?cause?when?acting?within?the?scope?of?their?employment.
A?judicially?recognized?exception?to?the?exclusive?remedy?restriction?on?actions?against?employers-the?”dual?capacity?doctrine”-has?been?understood?to?also?permit?an?action?for?damages?against?a?coemployee?physician?if?the?injury?to?the?plaintiff?employee?was?caused?or?aggravated?by?the?defendant.?This?case?arises?because?the?Legislature?has?imposed?limits?on?the?dual?capacity?doctrine?by?amendment?of?section?3602.
- Dual?Capacity?of?Employers
At?the?time?Duprey?was?decided,?section?3601?governed?actions?against?employers?by?injured?employees.?It?then?provided:?”Where?the?conditions?of?compensation?exist,?the?right?to?recover?such?compensation?pursuant?to?the?provisions?of?this?division?is,?except?as?provided?in?section?3706,?the?exclusive?remedy?against?the?employer?for?the?injury?or?death.”
Plaintiff?Duprey?was?employed?as?a?practical?nurse?by?defendants?who?were?partners?engaged?in?the?practice?of?chiropractic.?The?plaintiff?was?[54?Cal.3d?731]?injured?on?the?job.?She?was?treated?by?one?of?her?employers?and?by?a?fellow?employee,?also?a?chiropractor,?who?was?another?defendant.?The?treatment?aggravated?her?injuries.?She?applied?for?and?received?compensation?from?the?Industrial?Accident?Commission?(IAC)?for?the?original?injury?and?resulting?disability,?and?then?sued?Dr.?Shane,?her?employer,?and?Dr.?Harrison,?her?coemployee,?for?malpractice?in?causing?the?subsequent?injury.?After?jury?trial,?the?plaintiff?was?awarded?damages?for?that?injury.
On?appeal?from?the?judgment,?the?defendants?claimed,?inter?alia,?that?the?IAC?had?exclusive?jurisdiction?over?the?plaintiff’s?claim,?relying?on?section?3601?for?that?proposition.?The?Court?of?Appeal,?whose?opinion?this?court?adopted,?disagreed?and?affirmed?the?judgment?for?the?plaintiff.
The?court?reasoned:?”?'[W]hen?the?employing?doctor?elected?to?treat?the?industrial?injury,?the?doctor?assumed?the?same?responsibilities?that?any?doctor?would?have?assumed?had?he?been?called?in?on?the?case?….?[S]uch?third?party?doctor?can?be?sued?for?malpractice?resulting?in?an?aggravation?of?an?industrial?injury,?or?a?new?injury.?It?follows?that?the?employer-doctor?may?be?sued?for?malpractice?when?he?elects?to?treat?the?industrial?injury.’?”?(Duprey?v.?Shane,?supra,?39?Cal.2d?781,?789,?bracketed?deletions?from?Court?of?Appeal?opinion?omitted.)?In?further?explanation,?the?court?noted?the?right?of?an?injured?employee?to?sue?a?doctor?provided?by?the?employer’s?insurer?for?malpractice,?and?concluded?that?the?employee?did?not?lose?that?right?if?an?employer?who?was?a?doctor?treated?the?injury.?”?’In?such?event,?the?employer-doctor?is?a?”person?other?than?the?employer”?within?the?meaning?of?section?3852?of?the?Labor?Code?….?In?treating?the?injury?Dr.?Shane?did?not?do?so?because?of?the?employer-employee?relationship,?but?did?so?as?an?attending?doctor,?and?his?relationship?to?[plaintiff]?was?that?of?doctor?and?patient.’?”?(39?Cal.2d?at?p.?793,?bracketed?deletions?from?Court?of?Appeal?opinion?omitted.)
Use?of?the?phrase?”dual?capacity”?to?describe?this?secondary?relationship?between?the?chiropractor/employer?and?patient/employee?in?Duprey?v.?Shane,?supra,?39?Cal.2d?781,?and?analogous?relationships?in?later?cases?apparently?stems?from?the?defendants’?argument?in?Duprey?that?the?result?would?recognize?a?”dual?legal?personality,”?a?disfavored?concept.?Rejecting?that?argument,?this?court?held:
“?’It?is?true?that?the?law?is?opposed?to?the?creation?of?a?dual?personality,?where?to?do?so?is?unrealistic?and?purely?legalistic.?But?where,?as?here,?it?is?perfectly?apparent?that?the?person?involved?…?bore?towards?his?employee?two?relationships-that?of?employer?and?that?of?a?doctor-there?should?be?no?hesitancy?in?recognizing?this?fact?as?a?fact.?Such?a?conclusion,?in?this?case,?is?[54?Cal.3d?732]?in?precise?accord?with?the?facts?and?is?realistic?and?not?legalistic.?We?conclude,?therefore,?that?an?employee?injured?in?an?industrial?accident?may?sue?the?attending?physician?for?malpractice?if?the?original?injury?is?aggravated?as?a?result?of?the?doctor’s?negligence,?and?that?such?right?exists?whether?the?attending?doctor?is?the?insurance?doctor?or?the?employer.’?”?(Duprey?v.?Shane,?supra,?39?Cal.2d?at?p.?793.)
The?reasoning?of?Duprey?was?applied?to?several?variants?of?employer/physician?relationship?prior?to?legislative?restriction?of?the?dual?capacity?doctrine?by?amendment?of?section?3602.fn.?6?We?again?explained?the?theory?underlying?the?doctrine?in?Bell?v.?Industrial?Vangas,?Inc.,?supra,?30?Cal.3d?268,?273,?footnote?4:?”This?concept?assumes?a?logical,?rational?and?legally?self-evident?premise.?An?individual?can?act?in?two?or?more?different,?distinct?capacities,?either?simultaneously?or?sequentially,?giving?rise?in?law?to?separate?and?distinct?sets?of?obligations.?There?is?no?fictional?character,?no?need?to?create?any?’Doppleganger’?to?support?the?rule?as?long?applied?in?California;?only?a?recognition?of?a?simple?fact-one?person?can?have?separate?and?distinct?legal?personalities.”
Finally,?in?Jones?v.?Kaiser?Industries?Corp.?(1987)?43?Cal.3d?552,?560?[237?Cal.Rptr.?568,?737?P.2d?771],?a?case?arising?prior?to?the?1982?amendment?of?section?3602,?we?again?described?the?concept:
“The?dual?capacity?doctrine,?first?enunciated?in?this?state?in?Duprey?v.?Shane?(1952)?39?Cal.2d?781,?793,?holds?that?if?the?employer?occupies?toward?his?employee?a?second?relationship?that?imposes?obligations?different?from?those?he?has?undertaken?in?his?capacity?as?employer,?he?may?be?liable?in?tort?in?the?event?the?employee?is?injured?as?a?result?of?the?violation?of?those?distinct?obligations.?The?rule?has?generally?been?applied?to?cases?in?which?the?employee?was?injured?at?work?by?the?use?of?a?product?which?the?employer?manufactured?for?public?distribution?[citations],?or?where?the?employer?steps?out?of?his?role?as?employer?by?providing?medical?care?to?the?employee?[citations].”?(See?also,?Cole?v.?Fair?Oaks?Fire?Protection?Dist.?(1987)?43?Cal.3d?148,?162?[233?Cal.Rptr.?308,?729?P.2d?743]?[“In?all?of?these?cases,?the?conduct?which?gave?rise?to?the?dual?capacity?doctrine?was?an?act?not?ordinarily?part?of?the?employment.”].)?[54?Cal.3d?733]
- Dual?Capacity?and?Coemployees
The?Duprey?decision?also?permitted?the?plaintiff?to?pursue?her?action?against?her?coemployee,?Dr.?Harrison.?The?court?did?not?identify?any?existing?bar?to?that?suit?or?explain?the?necessity?for?its?analogy?of?that?action?to?the?action?against?the?employer.?We?said?only?that?Harrison?was?also?subject?to?suit?because?”?’it?is?hard?to?see?how?Dr.?Harrison?is?in?any?different?position?than?the?insurance?company?doctor?would?have?been?had?he?been?called?in?to?treat?[plaintiff].’?”?(Duprey?v.?Shane,?supra,?39?Cal.2d?at?pp.?794-795,?bracketed?deletions?from?Court?of?Appeal?opinion?omitted.)
There?was?no?statutory?limitation?on?actions?against?coemployees?at?the?time?Duprey?was?decided.?Section?3852?had?provided?since?its?enactment?in?1937?(Stats.?1937,?ch.?90,?p.?273)?that?an?employee’s?claim?for?workers’?compensation?did?not?affect?his?or?her?right?of?action?”against?any?person?other?than?the?employer.”fn.?7?Suits?against?coemployees?were?permitted.
In?1959,?following?Duprey,?section?3601?was?amended?to?include?coemployees.?Prior?to?that?year,?workers’?compensation?had?been?the?exclusive?remedy?only?as?against?an?employer?for?the?injury?or?death?of?an?employee.
“Prior?to?1959?when?section?3601?was?amended,?there?was?no?doubt?that?the?common?law?right?of?an?employee?to?sue?a?coemployee?for?injuries?negligently?inflicted?while?on?the?job?[citation],?was?preserved?in?this?jurisdiction?by?section?3852.?Baugh?v.?Rogers?(1944)?24?Cal.2d?200,?214?[148?P.2d?633,?152?A.L.R.?1043],?held?that?’Our?workmen’s?compensation?laws?were?not?designed?to?relieve?one?other?than?the?employer?from?any?liability?imposed?by?statute?or?common?law.’?[Citation.]?At?that?time?and?until?1959,?section?3601?merely?stated:?’Where?the?conditions?of?compensation?exist,?the?right?to?recover?such?compensation?…?is?…?the?exclusive?remedy?against?the?employer?for?the?injury?or?death.’?(Stats.?1937,?ch.?90,?p.?269.)”?(Saala?v.?McFarland?(1965)?63?Cal.2d?124,?127?[45?Cal.Rptr.?144,?403?P.2d?400].)
As?amended?in?1959,?section?3601?made?workers’?compensation?the?”exclusive?remedy?for?injury?or?death?of?an?employee?against?the?employer?or?against?any?other?employee?of?the?employer?acting?within?the?scope?of?his?or?her?employment?….”?(Stats.?1959,?ch.?1189,???1,?p.?3275.)?[2]?The?immunity?granted?coemployees?was?more?limited?than?that?extended?to?employers,?however.?Workers’?compensation?was?the?exclusive?remedy?only?[54?Cal.3d?734]?if?the?employee?was?”acting?within?the?scope?of?his?or?her?employment.?…”fn.?8?(Ibid.,?italics?added.)
This?court?considered?the?impact?of?the?1959?amendment?in?Saala?v.?McFarland,?supra,?63?Cal.2d?124.?There,?the?plaintiff?employee?suffered?a?compensable?injury?when?she?was?struck?by?an?automobile?driven?by?a?coemployee?on?a?parking?lot?maintained?by?the?employer.?She?sued?the?coemployee,?who?claimed?that?the?immunity?from?suit?granted?coemployees?by?the?1959?amendment?of?section?3601?was?coextensive?with?that?granted?employers?by?sections?3600?and?3601.?This?court?rejected?the?argument:
“[W]e?cannot?agree?with?defendant’s?contention?that?the?Legislature?intended?to?exempt?from?the?common?law?liability?retained?in?section?3852?all?employee?actions?causing?harm?to?coemployees?to?the?identical?extent?that?the?common?employer?is?exempted?from?civil?liability?because?of?its?provision?for?workmen’s?compensation.?…?The?presumption?that?an?overall?change?is?intended?where?a?statute?is?amended?following?a?judicial?decision?[citation]?is?given?its?full?effect?if?section?3601?as?amended?is?construed?to?change?the?law?stated?in?those?cases?and?exempt?from?civil?liability?only?a?coemployee’s?actions?within?the?scope?of?employment,?rather?than?those?’arising?out?of?and?in?the?course?of?the?employment.’?”?(Saala?v.?McFarland,?supra,?63?Cal.2d?124,?128.)
The?limitation?of?coemployee?immunity?to?acts?within?the?scope?of?employment?reflects?apparent?legislative?recognition?that,?because?coemployees?do?not?have?financial?obligations?imposed?on?them?under?the?workers’?compensation?law?comparable?to?those?imposed?on?an?employer,?granting?the?same?broad?immunity?was?not?justified.?Employers?are?granted?immunity?from?suit?in?most?cases?because,?regardless?of?fault,?they?are?obligated?to?provide?benefits?to?an?injured?employee.?(S.?G.?Borello?&?Sons,?Inc.?v.?Department?of?Industrial?Relations?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?341,?354?[256?Cal.Rptr.?543,?769?P.2d?399];?Pacific?Gas?&?Elec.?Co.?v.?Ind.?Acc.?Com.?(1961)?56?Cal.2d?219,?233?[14?Cal.Rptr.?548,?363?P.2d?596].)?An?employee?is?liable?only?for?tortious?conduct.?There?is?no?reason?to?grant?employees?the?same?broad?immunity?from?suit?that?employers?enjoy.
The?1959?amendment?therefore?granted?a?limited?immunity?to?employees.?That?immunity?protects?employees?from?damage?actions?by?coemployees,?but?only?if?the?defendant?was?acting?within?the?scope?of?employment?when?that?defendant’s?conduct?injured?the?plaintiff.?[54?Cal.3d?735]
This?court’s?earlier?recognition?of?coemployee?liability?in?Duprey?v.?Shane,?supra,?39?Cal.2d?781,?was?consistent?with?the?limitation?created?by?the?1959?amendment?of?section?3601.?However,?courts?which?relied?on?that?decision?and?the?”dual?capacity”?doctrine?thereafter?as?a?basis?for?permitting?actions?against?coemployees?did?not?recognize,?as?this?court?did?in?Saala?v.?McFarland,?supra,?63?Cal.2d?124,?that?coemployees?were?not?exempted?from?suit?when?the?workers’?compensation?system?was?created,?and?that?section?3601?establishes?an?immunity?from?suit?for?coemployees?which?is?distinct?from?that?granted?employers?by?section?3602.
Thus,?in?Hoffman?v.?Rogers?(1972)?22?Cal.App.3d?655?[99?Cal.Rptr.?455],?a?malpractice?action?was?permitted?against?a?coemployee?physician?who?allegedly?aggravated?an?industrial?injury.?In?Hoffman,?as?in?the?present?case,?the?services?for?which?the?physician?was?employed?included?treatment?of?industrial?injuries.?Relying?on?the?statement?in?Duprey?v.?Shane,?supra,?39?Cal.2d?781,?794,?that?the?principles?underlying?our?conclusion?that?the?employer?could?be?held?liable?were?equally?applicable?to?the?coemployee?physician,?the?Court?of?Appeal?held?that?the?1959?amendment?of?section?3601?did?not?affect?the?”dual?legal?personality”?rule?enunciated?in?Duprey.?(22?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?662.)
III?Legislative?Restriction?of?Dual?Capacity
Prior?to?the?1982?amendment,?section?3602?stated?only:?”In?all?cases?where?the?conditions?of?compensation?do?not?concur,?the?liability?of?the?employer?is?the?same?as?if?this?division?had?not?been?enacted.”?(Stats.?1937,?ch.?90,?p.?269.)
In?1982,?the?Legislature?amended?sections?3601?and?3602.?Since?that?amendment,?section?3601?has?applied?only?to?coemployees.?Section?3602?has?governed?civil?liability?of?employers.?As?amended,?section?3602?provides?in?pertinent?part:
“(a)?Where?the?conditions?of?compensation?set?forth?in?Section?3600?concur,?the?right?to?recover?such?compensation?is,?except?as?specifically?provided?in?this?section?and?Sections?3706?and?4558,?the?sole?and?exclusive?remedy?of?the?employee?or?his?or?her?dependents?against?the?employer,?and?the?fact?that?either?the?employee?or?the?employer?also?occupied?another?or?dual?capacity?prior?to,?or?at?the?time?of,?the?employee’s?industrial?injury?shall?[54?Cal.3d?736]?not?permit?the?employee?or?his?or?her?dependents?to?bring?an?action?at?law?for?damages?against?the?employer.”?(Italics?added.)fn.?9
[3a]?Defendant?argues?that?this?amendment?reflects?a?legislative?intent?to?abrogate?the?dual?capacity?doctrine?as?to?coemployees?as?well?as?employers.?As?a?result,?he?claims,?coemployees?are?entitled?to?the?same?protection?against?suit?that?employers?now?enjoy,?and?may?not?be?held?liable?on?a?dual?capacity?theory.Failing?to?recognize?the?significance?of?section?3601,?defendant?argues?that?the?language?of?section?3602,?as?amended,?and?the?legislative?history?of?the?1982?amendment,?reflect?an?intent?to?abolish?the?dual?capacity?doctrine?altogether-as?to?both?employers?and?coemployees-except?as?expressly?provided?in?section?3602.fn.?10
Plaintiff?argues?in?response?that?the?1982?amendment?does?not?affect?application?of?the?doctrine?in?malpractice?actions?against?employer-?physicians?in?medical?malpractice?cases?involving?aggravation?of?industrial?injury,?and?has?no?effect?whatsoever?on?actions?against?coemployees.?He?also?argues?that,?regardless?of?the?impact?of?the?1982?amendment?on?actions?against?employers,?the?legislative?history?of?the?1982?amendments?reflects?no?consideration?of?the?dual?capacity?rule?as?applied?to?coemployees.?Therefore,?he?reasons,?the?Legislature?cannot?be?deemed?to?have?intended?that?the?restrictions?imposed?in?section?3602?be?extended?to?actions?governed?by?section?3601.
Plaintiff’s?view?has?been?accepted?by?one?commentator.?Professor?Larson?states?in?his?treatise:?”The?dual?capacity?doctrine?was?legislatively?abolished?[54?Cal.3d?737]?in?1982?as?to?the?employer?as?a?third-party?defendant,?but?apparently?not?as?to?the?co-employee?doctor.”?(2A?Larson,?The?Law?of?Workmen’s?Compensation?(4th?ed.?1990)???72.61(b),?p.?228.47,?fn.?65.1.)
The?legislative?history?of?the?1982?amendment?of?section?3602?(Stats.?1982,?ch.?922,???6,?p.?3367),?also?suggests?that?the?Legislature?did?not?intend?that?the?restriction?of?the?dual?capacity?doctrine?inserted?into?section?3602?be?incorporated?into?section?3601.?The?Legislative?Counsel’s?Digest?of?Assembly?Bill?No.?684?(1981-1982?Reg.?Sess.),?which?amended?section?3602,?referred?only?to?actions?against?employers,?stating:?”This?bill?would?provide?that?the?right?to?workers’?compensation?is?the?sole?and?exclusive?remedy?of?the?employee?against?the?employer,?and?the?fact?that?either?party?occupied?another?or?dual?capacity?shall?not?permit?the?employee?to?bring?an?action?at?law?for?damages?against?the?employer.”
Defendant?relies?on?the?same?legislative?history,?but?none?of?that?history?includes?any?reference?to?actions?against?coemployees?or?suggests?that?the?Legislature?intended?any?change?in?the?existing?ban?on?actions?against?coemployees?who?were?acting?within?the?scope?of?their?employment.?One?item?on?which?defendant?relies,?a?report?of?the?conference?committee?on?the?bill?amending?section?3602,?states?that?”the?bill?contains?strict?limitations?on?the?’dual?capacity’?doctrine,”?but?the?report?does?not?support?a?conclusion?that?the?Legislature?had?in?mind?any?change?in?the?dual?capacity?doctrine?as?it?applies?to?coemployees.?To?the?contrary,?the?report?explains?that?the?”provisions?are?necessary?so?that?California?employers?are?not?held?liable?for?the?payment?of?both?worker’s?compensation?benefits?and?tort?liability?awards?for?a?substantial?number?of?work-related?injuries.”?(Rep.?by?Conference?Com.?on?Assem.?Bill?No.?684,?pp.?2-3;?italics?added.)?Like?the?Legislative?Counsel’s?digest,?this?report?refers?only?to?the?impact?of?the?dual?capacity?doctrine?on?employers.?For?that?reason,?and?because?coemployees?are?not?subject?to?the?potential?for?dual?liability,?and?employers?do?not?face?that?danger?for?acts?committed?by?employees?which?are?outside?the?scope?of?their?employment,?this?report?does?not?support?a?conclusion?that?the?Legislature?intended?the?amendment?of?section?3602?to?affect?the?liability?of?coemployees.
We?agree?with?plaintiff,?therefore,?that?the?legislative?history?of?the?1982?amendment?of?section?3602?does?not?suggest?that?the?Legislature?intended?to?expand?the?immunity?of?coemployees?when?it?amended?section?3602.?The?legislative?history?reflects?no?consideration?of,?or?intent?to?alter,?the?liability?of?coemployees.
While?coemployees?are?not?protected?by?the?exclusive?remedy?provisions?of?section?3602,?however,?they?do?enjoy?the?immunity?created?by?section?[54?Cal.3d?738]?3601.?That?section?expressly?immunizes?coemployees?for?acts?within?the?scope?of?employment.?Because?the?judicially?recognized?dual?capacity?doctrine?did?not?and?could?not?create?an?exception?to?the?statutory?immunity?granted?coemployees?in?1959,?the?amendment?of?section?3601?in?1982?to?restrict?or?preclude?application?of?that?doctrine?to?coemployees?was?unnecessary.?Therefore,?while?we?agree?with?plaintiff?that?the?1982?amendment?of?section?3602?(to?restrict?the?dual?capacity?doctrine?theretofore?applied?to?employers)?does?not?affect?the?liability?of?coemployees,?it?does?not?follow?that?this?suit?may?be?prosecuted.
In?the?1982?amendments?to?the?workers’?compensation?law?the?Legislature?made?a?less?extensive,?but?equally?significant,?amendment?to?the?coemployee?immunity?provision?of?section?3601.?That?amendment?supports,?indeed?compels,?a?conclusion?that?a?coemployee?physician?enjoys?immunity?from?suit?for?malpractice?under?the?1959?amendment?of?section?3601?if?the?coemployee?physician?was?acting?within?the?scope?of?employment?when?the?injury?was?caused.
Prior?to?the?1982?amendments,?section?3601?already?included?the?exclusive?remedy?language?that?was?added?to?section?3602?in?1982.?As?amended?in?1959?(Stats.?1959,?ch.?1189,???1,?pp.?3275-3276)?and?by?subsequent?nonsubstantive?amendments,?subdivision?(a)?of?section?3601?provided:
“(a)?Where?the?conditions?of?compensation?exist,?the?right?to?recover?such?compensation,?pursuant?to?the?provisions?of?this?division?is,?except?as?provided?in?Section?3706,?the?exclusive?remedy?for?injury?or?death?of?an?employee?against?the?employer?or?against?any?other?employee?of?the?employer?acting?within?the?scope?of?his?employment,?except?that?an?employee,?or?his?dependents?in?the?event?in?his?death,?shall,?in?addition?to?the?right?to?compensation?against?the?employer,?have?a?right?to?bring?an?action?at?law?for?damages?against?the?other?employee,?as?if?this?division?did?not?apply,?in?the?following?cases:
“(1)?When?the?injury?or?death?is?proximately?caused?by?the?willful?and?unprovoked?physical?act?of?aggression?of?such?other?employee.
“(2)?When?the?injury?or?death?is?proximately?caused?by?the?intoxication?of?such?other?employee.”
In?the?1982?amendment?of?section?section?3601,?however,?the?Legislature?added?an?express?restriction?on?nonstatutory?exceptions?to?the?exclusive?remedy?rule?applicable?to?coemployees.
As?amended?to?apply?only?to?coemployees,?section?3601,?subdivision?(a),?now?states:?”Where?the?conditions?of?compensation?set?forth?in?Section?3600?[54?Cal.3d?739]?concur,?the?right?to?recover?such?compensation,?pursuant?to?the?provisions?of?this?division?is,?except?as?specifically?provided?in?this?section,?the?exclusive?remedy?for?injury?or?death?of?an?employee?against?any?other?employee?of?the?employer?acting?within?the?scope?of?his?or?her?employment?….”?(Italics?added.)?Those?statutory?exceptions?encompass?only?injury?caused?by?wilful?and?unprovoked?physical?aggression?of?a?coemployee?and?those?caused?by?a?coemployee’s?intoxication.?And,?consistent?with?the?legislative?purpose?of?preventing?dual?liability?for?employers,?subdivision?(b)?of?section?3601?provides?that?the?employer?may?not?be?held?liable?for?a?damage?award?against?a?coemployee?when?suit?is?brought?under?one?of?the?exceptions.
The?1982?amendment?of?section?3601?confirms?therefore?the?legislative?intent?that?there?be?no?judicially?created?exceptions?to?the?immunity?that?has?been?granted?to?coemployees.
Plaintiff?argues?that?a?malpractice?action?should?be?permitted?against?a?coemployee?physician?even?if?the?physician?was?providing?treatment?pursuant?to?his?employment?obligations?because?a?physician’s?duties?as?a?professional?are?separate?from?the?employment?relationship.?The?statute?is?clear,?however.?If?one?employee?is?acting?within?the?scope?of?employment?at?the?time?the?employee?injures?another?employee,?workers’?compensation?is?the?injured?employee’s?exclusive?remedy?against?the?coemployee.?The?rule?proposed?by?plaintiff?cannot?be?reconciled?with?the?statutory?language.
The?Court?of?Appeal?disagreed?with?the?trial?court’s?ruling?on?the?impact?of?the?1982?amendment?of?section?3602,?because?it?believed?that?the?failure?of?the?Legislature?to?amend?section?3601?in?the?same?way?that?section?3602?had?been?amended?in?1982?had?to?be?understood?as?reflecting?only?an?intent?to?restrict?application?of?the?dual?capacity?doctrine?to?employers.?The?Court?of?Appeal?failed?to?recognize,?however,?that?section?3601?already?created?an?immunity?which?is?absolute?if?a?coemployee?defendant?was?acting?within?the?scope?of?employment?when?the?plaintiff?suffered?the?industrial?injury.
The?Legislature?has?made?it?clear?that?if?a?coemployee?was?acting?within?the?scope?of?his?or?her?employment,?the?only?exceptions?to?the?immunity?created?by?section?3601?are?those?created?by?statute.?Therefore,?while?we?agree?with?the?conclusion?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?that?the?amendment?of?section?3602?has?no?impact?on?section?3601,?that?court?erred?in?permitting?this?medical?practice?action?to?proceed?against?a?coemployee?defendant?without?regard?to?whether?the?defendant?was?acting?within?the?scope?of?his?employment.?[54?Cal.3d?740] IV?Scope?of?Employment
Since?section?3601?governs?this?action,?the?dispositive?question?is?whether?defendant?was?acting?within?the?scope?of?his?employment?when?he?negligently?treated?and/or?diagnosed?plaintiff’s?injury.
[4]?Saala?v.?McFarland,?supra,?63?Cal.2d?124,?is?instructive?in?defining?the?”scope?of?employment”?limitation?of?section?3601.?”?’Conduct?is?within?the?scope?of?employment?only?if?the?servant?is?actuated?to?some?extent?by?an?intent?to?serve?his?master.’?[Citations.]”?(63?Cal.2d?at?p.?129.)?Approaching?the?question?from?another?perspective,?a?coemployee’s?conduct?is?within?the?scope?of?his?or?her?employment?if?it?could?be?imputed?to?the?employer?under?the?doctrine?of?respondeat?superior.?If?the?coemployee?was?not?”engaged?in?any?active?service?for?the?employer,”?the?coemployee?was?not?acting?within?the?scope?of?employment.?(Id.?at?p.?130.)We?explained?in?Saala?v.?McFarland,?supra,?that?this?test?implements?the?purpose?of?the?exclusive?remedy?rule?which?protects?employers.?Adopting?the?reasoning?of?the?referee?we?stated?there:?”?'[T]he?purpose?of?section?3601?is?to?make?workmen’s?compensation?the?exclusive?remedy?of?an?injured?workman?against?his?employer.?That?purpose?would?be?defeated?if?a?right?of?action?existed?against?a?fellow?employee?acting?in?the?scope?of?his?employment?in?such?a?way?that?the?fellow?employee’s?negligence?could?be?imputed?to?the?employer.?For?that?reason?workmen’s?compensation?was?also?made?the?exclusive?remedy?against?a?fellow?workman?”acting?within?the?scope?of?his?employment.”?The?words?”acting?within?the?scope?of?his?employment”?should?be?construed?in?the?light?of?the?purpose?of?the?section,?so?as?not?to?extend?the?immunity?beyond?respondeat?superior?situations.’?[Citation.]”?(63?Cal.2d?at?p.?130.)
[3b]?The?statutory?immunity?established?by?section?3601?applies?here.?The?allegations?of?the?complaint?and?the?employment?contract,?of?which?judicial?notice?has?been?taken,?compel?a?conclusion?that?defendant?was?acting?within?the?scope?of?his?employment?when?he?diagnosed?and?treated?plaintiff.?The?Club?was?obligated?to?provide?treatment?for?injuries?related?to?plaintiff’s?employment,?and?defendant?was?under?an?obligation?arising?out?of?his?employment?relationship?with?the?Club?to?provide?that?treatment.?Unlike?the?situation?of?the?defendants?in?Duprey?v.?Shane,?supra,?39?Cal.2d?781,?defendant?did?not?step?out?of?his?coemployee?role?when?he?treated?plaintiff.?He?did?exactly?what?he?was?employed?to?do.The?conditions?necessary?to?invoke?the?immunity?granted?by?section?3601?are?present?here?since?both?the?original?injury?and?the?alleged?aggravation?[54?Cal.3d?741]?arose?out?of?and?in?the?course?of?plaintiff’s?employment?and?”at?the?time?of?the?injury,?[plaintiff?was]?performing?service?growing?out?of?and?incidental?to?his?…?employment?and?[was]?acting?within?the?course?of?his?…?employment.”?In?addition?”the?injury?[was]?proximately?caused?by?the?employment?….”?(??3600,?subd.?(a)(2)?&?(3).)?Since?the?conditions?of?section?3600?were?met,?and?defendant?was?acting?within?the?scope?of?his?employment?when?he?diagnosed?and/or?treated?plaintiff,?section?3601,?by?its?express?terms,?makes?workers’?compensation?plaintiff’s?exclusive?remedy.?His?action?against?defendant?is?statutorily?barred.
[5]?If?a?coemployee?provides?medical?services?other?than?those?contemplated?by?the?employee’s?employment?and?in?so?doing?is?not?acting?for?the?employer,?he?or?she?no?longer?enjoys?the?”immunity”?from?suit?which?section?3601?creates?for?acts?which?are?within?the?scope?of?employment.?In?Hoffman?v.?Rogers,?supra,?22?Cal.App.3d?655,?for?example,?the?coemployee?physician?provided?postsurgical?treatment?to?the?plaintiff.?In?so?doing,?he?engaged?in?a?course?of?care?and?treatment?beyond?the?preliminary?diagnosis?and?referral?which?were?the?duties?incidental?to?his?employment.?(Id.?at?p.?659.)?In?those?circumstances,?the?coemployee?may?have?assumed?the?”dual?capacity”?of?a?treating?physician.?[3c]?Although?analyzed?by?the?court?under?the?dual?capacity?doctrine,?that?doctrine?was?not?necessary?to?the?result?since?the?exclusive?remedy?rule?of?section?3601?limited?actions?against?coemployees?only?if?the?injury?was?caused?by?an?act?within?the?scope?of?the?defendant?coemployee’s?employment.fn.?11By?contrast,?in?Wickham?v.?North?American?Rockwell?Corp.?(1970)?8?Cal.App.3d?467?[87?Cal.Rptr.?563],?workers’?compensation?benefits?were?held?to?be?the?injured?employee’s?exclusive?remedy?for?negligent?diagnosis?by?a?company?physician.?There,?because?the?conditions?of?employment?were?dangerous?to?employees’?health,?a?staff?of?physicians?was?employed?for?the?purpose?of?examining,?diagnosing,?and?treating?employee?ailments.?The?Court?of?Appeal?agreed?with?the?trial?court?which?had?sustained?without?leave?to?amend?defendant’s?demurrer?to?a?complaint?alleging?that?one?of?those?coemployee?physicians?had?negligently?failed?to?diagnose?a?progressive?lung?disease.?The?court?reasoned?that?the?medical?services?were?provided?because?the?employment?posed?an?inherent?health?hazard,?and?the?physical?examinations?provided?by?the?employer?were?contemplated?by?the?work.?The?complaint?alleged?that?the?coemployee?physician?was?acting?within?the?scope?of?his?employment.?Therefore,?the?court?could?not?conclude,?[54?Cal.3d?742]?”as?the?court?did?in?Duprey,?that?when?defendant?[physician]?examined?plaintiff?he?did?so?in?some?capacity?and?relationship?other?than?that?which?he?ordinarily?enjoyed,?namely,?that?of?a?fellow?employee.”?(Id.?at?p.?474.)?Again,?although?the?court?failed?to?consider?the?limits?of?the?immunity?granted?by?section?3601,?the?result?was?consistent?with?those?limits.
Here,?too,?defendant?is?not?alleged?to?have?any?relationship?to?plaintiff?other?than?a?coemployee?whose?role?was?to?provide?medical?care?for?injuries?that?are?inherent?in?the?nature?of?plaintiff’s?employment.?The?express?language?of?section?3601?makes?workers’?compensation?plaintiff’s?sole?remedy?in?these?circumstances.
V?Leave?to?Amend
The?trial?court?in?this?case?failed?to?note?the?omission?of?any?allegations?suggesting?that?defendant?was?acting?outside?the?scope?of?his?employment?when?he?negligently?diagnosed?the?nature?of?plaintiff’s?industrial?injury.?The?court?believed?that?Hoffman?v.?Rogers,?supra,?22?Cal.App.3d?655,?was?factually?on?point,?although?defendant?had?argued?that?the?complaint?alleged?only?conduct?within?the?scope?of?his?employment?duties.?The?court?nonetheless?sustained?defendant’s?demurrer?without?leave?to?amend?in?the?belief?that?the?1982?amendment?of?section?3602?made?workers’?compensation?plaintiff’s?exclusive?remedy?even?though?a?dual?capacity?situation?had?existed?when?defendant?diagnosed?and?treated?plaintiff.
[6]?On?appeal?from?a?judgment?of?dismissal?entered?after?a?demurrer?has?been?sustained?without?leave?to?amend,?unless?failure?to?grant?leave?to?amend?was?an?abuse?of?discretion,?the?appellate?court?must?affirm?the?judgment?if?it?is?correct?on?any?theory.?(Code?Civ.?Proc.,???472c;?E.?L.?White,?Inc.?v.?City?of?Huntington?Beach?(1978)?21?Cal.3d?497?[146?Cal.Rptr.?614,?579?P.2d?505,?511.)?If?there?is?a?reasonable?possibility?that?the?defect?in?a?complaint?can?be?cured?by?amendment,?it?is?an?abuse?of?discretion?to?sustain?a?demurrer?without?leave?to?amend.?(Blank?v.?Kirwan?(1985)?39?Cal.3d?311,?318?[216?Cal.Rptr.?718,?703?P.2d?58].)?The?burden?is?on?the?plaintiff,?however,?to?demonstrate?the?manner?in?which?the?complaint?might?be?amended.?(Goodman?v.?Kennedy?(1976)?18?Cal.3d?335,?349?[134?Cal.Rptr.?375,?556?P.2d?737].) [7]?”?’Where?a?verified?complaint?contains?allegations?destructive?of?a?cause?of?action,?the?defect?cannot?be?cured?in?subsequently?filed?pleadings?by?simply?omitting?such?allegations?without?explanation.’?(Lamoreaux?v.?San?Diego?etc.?Ry.?Co.?(1957)?48?Cal.2d?617,?623?[311?P.2d?1];?see?Cothran?v.?San?Jose?Water?Works?(1962)?58?Cal.2d?608,?615?[25?Cal.Rptr.?569,?375?P.2d?[54?Cal.3d?743]?449];?Hardy?v.?Admiral?Oil?Co.?(1961)?56?Cal.2d?836,?840?[16?Cal.Rptr.?894,?366?P.2d?310];?Wennerholm?v.?Stanford?University?School?of?Medicine?(1942)?20?Cal.2d?713,?716?[128?P.2d?522,?141?A.L.R.?1358].)?’In?such?a?case?the?original?defect?infects?the?subsequent?pleading?so?as?to?render?it?vulnerable?to?a?demurrer.’?[Citation.]?However,?we?have?also?made?it?clear?that?’a?party?should?be?allowed?to?correct?a?pleading?by?omitting?an?allegation?which,?it?appears,?was?made?as?the?result?of?mistake?or?inadvertence.’?”?(Reichert?v.?General?Ins.?Co.?(1968)?68?Cal.2d?822,?836?[69?Cal.Rptr.?321,?442?P.2d?377].)?That?rule?applies?even?when?a?complaint?is?not?verified.?(Ibid.) [8]?Plaintiff?has?not?met?that?burden?in?this?case.?He?suggests?that?if?granted?leave?to?amend?he?would?allege?that?defendant?was?an?independent?contractor.?While?plaintiff’s?allegation?that?defendant?Losse?was?an?employee?was?made?on?information?and?belief,?he?did?not?suggest?to?the?trial?court?that?a?factual?basis?existed?for?amendment?of?the?complaint?to?allege?that?defendant?Losse?was?an?independent?contractor,?and?he?has?not?demonstrated?to?this?court?either?that?the?allegation?that?Losse?was?an?employee?was?the?result?of?inadvertence?or?mistake,?or?that?he?has?since?discovered?a?factual?basis?for?alleging?that?Losse?was?an?independent?contractor.?(Blank?v.?Kirwan?(1985)?39?Cal.3d?311,?318?[216?Cal.Rptr.?718,?703?P.2d?58].)In?these?circumstances,?although?the?allegation?that?defendant?was?an?employee?was?made?on?information?and?belief,?leave?to?amend?need?not?be?granted.
The?order?sustaining?defendant’s?demurrer?without?leave?to?amend?was?not?an?abuse?of?discretion.
VI?Disposition
The?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?is?reversed.
Lucas,?C.?J.,?Mosk,?J.,?Panelli,?J.,?Kennard,?J.,?Arabian,?J.,?and?George,?J.,?concurred.
FN?1.?All?statutory?references?are?to?the?Labor?Code?unless?otherwise?indicated.
FN?2.?For?purposes?of?this?appeal?all?well-pleaded?material?allegations?of?the?complaint?are?accepted?as?true.?(Shoemaker?v.?Myers?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?1,?7?[276?Cal.Rptr.?303,?801?P.2d?1054,?A.L.R.4th?1720].)
FN?3.?The?complaint?stated?five?causes?of?action,?only?the?fourth?and?fifth?of?which,?plaintiff?John?Hendy’s?claim?against?Dr.?Losse?for?medical?malpractice?and?plaintiff?Wanda?Hendy’s?loss?of?consortium?claim?against?Dr.?Losse,?are?in?dispute?here.?The?first?three?counts?stated?causes?of?action?against?the?Club?for?negligent?hiring?and?against?both?the?Club?and?Dr.?Losse?for?intentional?misrepresentation?and?negligent?misrepresentation.?These?three?counts?were?removed?to?federal?court?and?were?remanded?to?state?court?only?after?the?Court?of?Appeal?had?filed?its?opinion.?The?trial?courtt?sustained?the?Club’s?demurrer?to?the?fifth?count?and?the?Court?of?Appeal?affirmed?the?judgment?for?the?Club.?Plaintiff’s?answer?did?not?raise?any?issues?in?addition?to?those?set?forth?in?the?petition?for?review.?(See?Cal.?Rules?of?Court,?rule?28(d).)
The?Club?is?not?a?party?to?the?proceedings?in?this?court.?Our?references?to?”defendant”?are?to?Dr.?Losse.?Because?Wanda?Hendy’s?loss?of?consortium?claim?is?dependent?upon?John?Hendy’s?right?to?sue?defendant?and?will?not?be?discussed?separately,?our?references?to?”plaintiff”?are?to?John?Hendy.
FN?4.?As?indicated?in?footnote?3,?ante,?the?Court?of?Appeal?affirmed?the?judgment?for?the?Club.?Plaintiff’s?answer?did?not?raise?any?issues?in?addition?to?those?set?forth?in?the?petition?for?review.?(See?Cal.?Rules?of?Court,?rule?28(d).)?Neither?that?ruling?nor?the?holding?on?the?applicability?of?subdivision?(b)(2)?of?section?3602?to?the?cause?of?action?against?the?Club?is?before?us.
FN?5.?Section?3600:?”(a)?Liability?for?the?compensation?provided?by?this?division,?in?lieu?of?any?other?liability?whatsoever?to?any?person?except?as?otherwise?specifically?provided?in?Sections?3602,?3706,?and?4558,?shall,?without?regard?to?negligence,?exist?against?an?employer?for?any?injury?sustained?by?his?or?her?employees?arising?out?of?and?in?the?course?of?the?employment?and?for?the?death?of?any?employee?if?the?injury?proximately?causes?death,?in?those?cases?where?the?following?conditions?of?compensation?concur:
“(1)?Where,?at?the?time?of?the?injury,?both?the?employer?and?the?employee?are?subject?to?the?compensation?provisions?of?this?division.
“(2)?Where,?at?the?time?of?the?injury,?the?employee?is?performing?service?growing?out?of?and?incidental?to?his?or?her?employment?and?is?acting?within?the?course?of?his?or?her?employment.
“(3)?Where?the?injury?is?proximately?caused?by?the?employment,?either?with?or?without?negligence.
“(4)?Where?the?injury?is?not?caused?by?the?intoxication?of?the?injured?employee.
“(5)?Where?the?injury?is?not?intentionally?self-inflicted.
“(6)?Where?the?employee?has?not?willfully?and?deliberately?caused?his?or?her?own?death.
“(7)?Where?the?injury?does?not?arise?out?of?an?altercation?in?which?the?injured?employee?is?the?initial?physical?aggressor.
“(8)?Where?the?injury?is?not?caused?by?the?commission?of?a?felonious?act?by?the?injured?employee,?for?which?he?or?she?has?been?convicted.
“(9)?Where?the?injury?does?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,?except?where?these?activities?are?a?reasonable?expectancy?of,?or?are?expressly?or?impliedly?required?by,?the?employment.?…”
FN?6.?Among?them?were:?employer/supplier?of?defective?product?manufactured?by?employer?for?general?commercial?sale?(Bell?v.?Industrial?Vangas,?Inc.?(1981)?30?Cal.3d?268?[179?Cal.Rptr.?30,?637?P.2d?266];?Dorado?v.?Knudsen?Corp.?(1980)?103?Cal.App.3d?605?[163?Cal.Rptr.?477];?Douglas?v.?E.?&?J.?Gallo?Winery?(1977)?69?Cal.App.3d?103)?[137?Cal.Rptr.?797]);?respondeat?superior?liability?of?employer?hospital?for?negligence?of?hospital?employees?in?aggravating?industrial?injury?(D’Angona?v.?County?of?Los?Angeles?(1980)?27?Cal.3d?661?[166?Cal.Rptr.?177,?613?P.2d?238]);?and?employer’s?insurance?carrier?acting?outside?role?by?conducting?investigation?of?claim?in?fraudulent?manner?(Unruh?v.?Truck?Ins.?Exchange?(1972)?7?Cal.3d?616?[102?Cal.Rptr.?815,?498?P.2d?1063]).
FN?7.?Section?3852?now?reads,?in?pertinent?part:?”The?claim?of?an?employee,?including,?but?not?limited?to,?any?peace?officer?or?firefighter,?for?compensation?does?not?affect?his?or?her?claim?or?right?of?action?for?all?damages?proximately?resulting?from?the?injury?or?death?against?any?person?other?than?the?employer.?…”
FN?8.?Section?3600,?then,?as?now,?provided?that?the?liability?of?an?employer?for?compensation?was?”in?lieu?of?any?other?liability?whatsoever.”?Section?3602?stated:?”In?all?cases?where?the?conditions?of?compensation?do?not?concur,?the?liability?of?the?employer?is?the?same?as?if?this?division?had?not?been?enacted.”
FN?9.?The?Legislature?also?amended?section?3600?in?1982?to?add?subdivision?(a).?That?subdivision?now?provides:?”Liability?for?the?compensation?provided?by?this?division,?in?lieu?of?any?other?liability?whatsoever?to?any?person?except?as?otherwise?specifically?provided?in?Sections?3602,?3706,?and?4558,?shall,?without?regard?to?negligence?exist?against?an?employer?for?any?injury?sustained?by?his?or?her?employees?arising?out?of?and?in?the?course?of?the?employment?and?for?the?death?of?any?employee?if?the?injury?proximately?causes?death,?in?those?cases?where?the?…?conditions?of?compensation?concur:?…”
Section?3706?permits?an?action?against?an?employer?who?fails?to?”secure?the?payment?of?compensation”?as?by?carrying?insurance?against?liability?or?by?self-insuring.
FN?10.?Contrary?to?the?assumption?of?defendant?and?the?Court?of?Appeal,?it?is?not?clear?that?the?1982?amendment?of?section?3602?abolished?the?dual?capacity?doctrine?insofar?as?it?applied?to?employer?physicians?who?provide?treatment?to?their?employees?for?industrial?injuries.?(See?Sturtevant?v.?County?of?Monterey?(1991)?228?Cal.App.3d?758?[279?Cal.Rptr.?161].)
The?Legislature?also?preserved?another?facet?of?the?judicially?created?dual?capacity?doctrine?in?what?is?now?subdivision?(b)(3)?of?section?3602,?permitting?an?action?against?an?employer?”[w]here?the?employee’s?injury?or?death?is?proximately?caused?by?a?defective?product?manufactured?by?the?employer?and?sold,?leased,?or?otherwise?transferred?for?valuable?consideration?to?an?independent?third?person,?and?that?product?is?thereafter?provided?for?the?employee’s?use?by?a?third?person.”
FN?11.?To?the?extent?that?Hoffman?v.?Rogers,?supra,?22?Cal.App.3d?655,?fails?to?recognize?that?a?coemployee?who?performs?duties?beyond?those?incidental?to?employment?may?nonetheless?be?”engaged?in?…?active?service”?for?the?coemployee’s?employer?(Saala?v.?McFarland,?supra,?63?Cal.3d?124,?130),?it?is?disapproved.