Menu Close

Evangelina Ruiz began work as a legal assistant with Carter and Carter, APLC in 2007 at their office in Corona. Christopher Carter specialized in mold and mold remediation cases.

In September 2011, Christopher Carter accepted a tort case involving black water and mold in a house. Ruiz was assigned to inspect documents in the case, which she alleged contained mold and mold spores.

Ruiz became ill. Ruiz filed a worker’s compensation claim but Carter advised Ruiz it did not carry worker’s compensation insurance during the time that she alleged to have been sickened by the documents.

Ruiz filed a lawsuit in the trial court and with the Worker’s Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB).

The second amended complaint filed in the trial court, which alleged one cause of action for premises liability. Carter brought a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court.

Ruiz appealed the grant of Carter’s Motion claiming that (1) because Carter was an illegal uninsured employer, she only had to prove worker’s compensation causation, which is a lower standard than the civil causation standard used by the trial court in granting the Motion; (2) pursuant to Labor Code section 3708, Carter had the burden to prove it was not negligent; and (3) the trial court erred by rejecting Ruiz’s argument when she filed the first amended complaint, that she could allege different theories of negligence

The court of appeal conclude the Motion was properly granted and affirm the judgment in the unpublished case of Ruiz v. Carter & Carter, APL.

LC 3706 states, “If any employer fails to secure the payment of compensation, any injured employee or his dependents may bring an action at law against such employer for damages, as if this division did not apply.” LC 3708 mandates a presumption not present in other tort actions that the injury to the employee “was a direct result and grew out of the negligence of the employer, and the burden of proof is upon the employer, to rebut the presumption of negligence.”

Here, Ruiz had the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that she was injured in the Carter offices. Ruiz failed to provide any competent evidence with the SAC to support she was injured at Carter’s office.

The burden of proof did not shift to Carter under Labor Code section 3708 to prove that it was not negligent because Ruiz failed to present competent evidence that she had suffered an injury at work.