Opinion
E063527
10-10-2018
Law Offices of Patricia A. Law and Jonathan Alan Falconi for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Murchison & Cumming and William D. Naeve for Defendants and Respondents.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. RIC1409797) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Sharon J. Waters, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Patricia A. Law and Jonathan Alan Falconi for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Murchison & Cumming and William D. Naeve for Defendants and Respondents.
Kirk King (Kirk) sued CompPartners, Inc. (CompPartners) and Naresh Sharma, M.D. (Sharma), for (1) professional negligence; (2) negligence; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress. Kirk's wife, Sara King (Sara), sued CompPartners and Sharma (collectively, defendants) for loss of consortium. Kirk and Sara (collectively, the Kings) sought general, special, exemplary, and punitive damages. The trial court sustained defendants' demurrer without leave to amend.
We use first names for the sake of clarity. No disrespect is intended.
The Kings also sued Mohammed Ashraf Ali, M.D. (Ali); Whittier Drugs; and Does 1 through 100. The forgoing three defendants are not respondents in this appeal. At the time of the hearing on the demurrer, Ali had not been served with the complaint. --------
The Kings raise three issues on appeal. First, the Kings contend their claims are not preempted by the Workers' Compensation Act. Second, the Kings assert defendants owed them a duty of care. Third, the Kings contend the trial court erred by denying them leave to amend. We affirm the judgment.
DISCUSSION
After reviewing this case, the California Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not err in sustaining the demurrer and denying leave to amend. (King v. Comppartners, Inc. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 1039, 1061.) The high court held "that the workers' compensation law provides the exclusive remedy for [Kirk's] injuries and thus preempts [Kirk's] tort claims." (Id. at p. 1046.) The high court saw no means by which the Kings' could amend their complaint to state a claim outside of the workers' compensation system. (Id. at p. 1061.) Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondents are awarded their costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1).)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J. We concur: McKINSTER
Acting P. J. CODRINGTON
J.