John M. Langevin is the Managing Partner of the Law Offices of Floyd, Skeren & Kelly's Bay Area office. He is a Certified Specialist in workers' compensation law by the State Bar of California. Mr. Langevin began his career in workers' compensation defense at State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) in the State Contracts Unit where he was responsible for representation of the State of California. He was quickly promoted to senior counsel and regularly assigned complex cases, including catastrophic claims, discrimination complaints and multi-forum litigation. After twelve years at SCIF, he joined the Law Offices of Floyd, Skeren & Kelly and has since overseen the growth of its practice on a statewide basis. As a former nurse, his background in medical issues has proved to be an invaluable asset to achieving favorable results for his clients and that of his colleagues.
Please visit our online school.
The WorkCompAcademy is a full featured online learning experience. Our faculty includes the leading
practitioners in the California Workers' Compensation Community. Our online curriculum covers all aspects of
Workers' Compensation Claims, from basic concepts to advanced topics of value to experienced practitioners such as
senior claims exectives, attorneys, and Qualified Medical Evaluators. Students can access classes any time, from any
internet connected computer. Courses can be completed at an individualized pace.
WorkCompAcademy Recent California Developments
Jurisdiction and Exclusive Remedy
- 2nd DCA Unpublished - Maraj v Ralphs Grocery
Published opinion of Edward Carey Construction Company v State Compensation Insurance Fund. (March 2011)
- Prankster raises shopping cart up on Ralphs Grocery flag pole. Worker seriously hurt trying to put flag up in morning. Store manger told Emergency team she did not know what happened, but called hospital later that day when she found out. Worker sues claiming fraudulent concealment (i.e. Johns-Manville exception).
- Held: No evidence LC 3602, subdivision (b)(2) narrow exception to excusive remedy applies.
LeFiell Manufacturing Company v The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Published Court of Appeal (March 2011)
- Injured worker was owner of the company. When employer notified SCIF of the injury, SCIF asserted the policy "had been canceled and was not in effect." Employer obtained a ruling through binding arbitration that its insurance policy with SCIF was in full force and effect at the time of injury. Sued SCIF in Superior Court for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
- HELD: Case was appropriate and dismissal overturned.
- Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2011
Donnell Gilbreath v Holland Residential LLC, 2nd DCA Unpublished (December 2010)
- Claim that injury was caused by employers "knowing and intentional removal of, or knowing and intentional failure to install a point of operation guard" on the swaging machine which is a power press. Injured worker's spouse seeks damages for loss of consortium.
- Section 4558 (Power Press Exception) is one of the four statutory exceptions to the exclusive remedy rule. Court of Appeal Approves Loss of Consortium Expansion of Power Press Exception to allow spouse to claim damages.
- Supreme Court has granted a petition for review.
- 193 Cal.App.4th 1413
2nd DCA Unpublished, Terry Bazzini v Technicolor Inc., (January 2010)
- Condo manager trips and falls while walking her dog and "inspecting property" and carrier denies AOE-COE. Manger then sues employer for premises liability claiming that exclusive remedy should not apply since carrier denied she was in course of employment
- HELD: The insurer's denial of the claim does not constitute evidence that she was acting outside the course and scope of her employment.
- 75 Cal. Comp. Cases 1359
- Technicolor employee sued in Superior Court claiming they fraudulently concealed his chemical exposure triggering L.C. 3602(b)(2) exception to exclusive remedy. Summary judgment entered in favor of Technicolor. (i.e. Johns-Manville exception)
- HELD: Employee had no evidence that Technicolor knew his dermatitis was a symptom of chemical poisoning that could lead to cancer. Worker cannot "merely speculate" that Technicolor knew.
- 74 Cal.Comp.Cases 16