Alejandro Razo was employed by the Orange County Public Works. His job involved cleaning debris from various locations. On one occasion, Razo’s supervisor instructed him to use a “Vactor Truck” equipped with a hose and nozzle for spraying highly pressurized water. The County had allegedly modified the nozzle by welding closed its backward-facing spray ports, which increased the water pressure from the remaining ports and created an unsafe condition. Despite warnings from the equipment distributor that the modified nozzle was unsafe and should not be used, Razo’s supervisor directed him to disregard safety concerns and proceed. While using the nozzle, there was a sudden “big blast,” causing the hose and nozzle to kick back forcefully, striking Razo in the head. This resulted in severe injuries. The County had also been cited by Cal/OSHA for various safety violations related to injuries or equipment issues, which Razo alleged demonstrated willful and criminal disregard for employee safety.
Razo filed a lawsuit in 2022 against the County, alleging negligence. The County demurred to each amended complaint, primarily arguing that Razo’s claims were barred by the exclusivity of the Workers’ Compensation Act. For the third amended complaint, the County again demurred, emphasizing both workers’ compensation exclusivity and that the new causes of action exceeded the scope of the granted leave to amend.
In May 2024, the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. It ruled that the amendments exceeded the scope because they introduced entirely new claims instead of fixing the prior negligence and respondeat superior issues. Additionally, it held that the claims remained barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity, as Razo could not evade the system by relabeling his causes of action. In July 2024, the court dismissed the action against the County and entered judgment in its favor.
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment in full in the unpublished case of Razo v. County of Orange -G064631 (February 2026). It upheld the sustaining of the demurrer without leave to amend and the dismissal of Razo’s action.
The appellate court assumed, for the sake of argument, that the third amended complaint did not exceed the scope of leave to amend, but still concluded that the claims were barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity as a matter of law. Razo did not invoke any statutory exceptions to exclusivity. Instead, he argued the County’s conduct – willfully and criminally creating an ultrahazardous risk by modifying equipment and directing its use – fell outside the compensation bargain, as it was not a “normal part of the employment relationship.”
The court rejected this, noting that Razo’s injury occurred while performing assigned duties with employer-provided equipment. Even accepting allegations of intentional, egregious, or “criminal” misconduct (such as violating safety regulations and ignoring warnings), such conduct remains within exclusivity if connected to normal employment functions like providing tools and directing tasks.
Citing precedents like Shoemaker v. Myers 52 Cal.3d 1 (1990) and Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Protection Dist. 43 Cal.3d 148 (1987), the court emphasized that exclusivity applies despite intentional or outrageous employer actions, and knowing disregard of safety standards (e.g., Cal/OSHA violations) does not remove claims from the system, as seen in cases like Gunnell v. Metrocolor Laboratories, Inc. 92 Cal.App.4th 710 (2001) and Johns-Manville Products Corp. v. Superior Court 27 Cal.3d 465 (1980).
The court distinguished Razo’s cited cases. For instance, in Lee v. West Kern Water Dist. 5 Cal.App.5th 606 (2016), a mock robbery orchestrated by the employer created a triable issue because it bore no relation to workplace operations, unlike here where the conduct involved routine equipment decisions. In Johns-Manville, exclusivity did not bar claims for aggravated injuries from fraudulent concealment of a disease, but Razo’s injury arose directly from ordinary duties, not a separate aggravation. Razo’s public policy violation argument also failed, as the exception applies only to conduct violating fundamental policies independent of workplace safety (e.g., retaliatory discharge), not Cal/OSHA or safety statute breaches.
Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion in denying further leave to amend. Razo bore the burden to show how amendments could cure the defects but offered only vague proposals (e.g., reasserting negligence or adding that another employee was injured with the same equipment), which would still fall within the compensation bargain as restatements of unsafe equipment use. No plausible theory could remove the conduct from exclusivity.