Soliz v. Spielman
| Decision Date | 26 December 1974 |
| Citation | 44 Cal.App.3d 70,118 Cal.Rptr. 127 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Albert H. SOLIZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Sumner J. SPIELMAN et al., Defendants and Respondents; The Home Indemnity Company, Intervener and Appellant. Civ. 43695. |
Law Offices of Samuel B. Picone and Bruce J. Brothers, Beverly Hills, for intervenor and appellant.
Benton, Orr, Duval & Buckingham, Ventura, for defendants and respondents Spielman, Ghitterman and Steele.
On November 2, 1968, Soliz was injured while in the employ of a company for which Home was the workmen's compensation carrier. As a result of that accident, Home paid benefits to Soliz in the amount of $26,831.22.
On November 6, 1968, Soliz retained defendants Spielman, Ghitterman and Steele (hereinafter 'the attorneys') to bring an action against third parties alleged to have been the cause of the industrial injury. The attorneys allowed the statute of limitations to run on that cause of action.
On May 27, 1970, Soliz brought suit against the attorneys for malpractice. Thereafter Home filed a complaint in intervention in the malpractice suit and also filed therein a notice of lien claim. After the malpractice suit had progressed for two days, Soliz, without the knowledge or consent of Home, settled the malpractice action. The trial court then granted the attorneys judgment on the pleadings and struck Home's notice of lien. This appeal followed. 1
The present appeal presents a question on which there is no square authority. It is admitted that, had the attorneys duly filed and prosecuted the proposed action against the third parties and recovered a judgment therein in Soliz' favor, Home, either by complaint in intervention or by notice of lien, in That action would (unless the employer were contributorily negligent) have had a right of reimbursement for its compensation payments. The question before us is whether the attorneys, by preventing the personal injury action from proceeding, have become liable to Home. We conclude that they did not.
In Chapter 5, Part 1, Division 4 (Labor Code, §§ 3850--3864), 2 the Legislature has set forth an elaborate system for protecting the rights of an employer (or its carrier) to share in any recovery against a third party tort-feasor, so as to prevent a double recovery by the injured employee. Under section 3852, either the employee or the employer may bring an action against the third party. Whichever sues must notify the other; if both sue the actions may be consolidated. If the employee sues, the employer may, at its option, either intervene in the employee's action or, under section 3856, claim a lien on the employee's judgment.
But nowhere in the elaborate statutory scheme is there created any duty on the employee to the employer to institute an action against a third party. If the employee feels that any recovery in such a suit will not produce enough more than he has already received as workman's compensation, he may, without liability to the employer, allow the statute of limitations to run...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haugenoe v. Workforce Safety and Ins.
...Dimick, 179 F.Supp. 354 (D.Conn. 1959); Mt. Pleasant Special Sch. Dist. v. Gebhart, 378 A.2d 146 (Del.Ch.1977); Soliz v. Spielman, 44 Cal.App.3d 70, 118 Cal. Rptr. 127 (1974). IV [¶ 13] Haugenoe asserts that WSI does not have a subrogation interest in the legal malpractice settlement. He co......
-
Assurance Co. of America v. Haven
...indemnity against lawyer II who was retained to extricate client from lawyer I's alleged negligence]; see also Soliz v. Spielman (1974) 44 Cal.App.3d 70, 118 Cal.Rptr. 127 [attorneys representing injured worker who received workers compensation benefits file suit against third party beyond ......
-
Williams v. Katz
...Corp., 493 N.W.2d 838 (Ia.1992); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Breese, 138 Ariz. 508, 675 P.2d 1327, 1331-32 (App.1983); Soliz v. Spielman, 44 Cal.App.3d 70, 118 Cal.Rptr. 127 (1974), and Wausau Ins. Cos. v. Fuentes, 215 N.J.Super. 476, 522 A.2d 440 (App.1986), all answering "no." The court in Slad......
-
Duncan v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
...568 P.2d 363 ; Woodcock v. Fontana Scaffolding & Equip. Co. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 452, 72 Cal.Rptr. 217, 445 P.2d 881 ; Soliz v. Spielman (1974) 44 Cal.App.3d 70, 118 Cal.Rptr. 127.) Duncan, however, provides only a general citation to each of these cases without identifying a specific page or p......
-
Table of Cases
...(W/D-2002), §2:31 Solis v. American International Corp, 2014 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 181 (NPD-2014), §21:29 Soliz v. Spielman (1974) 44 Cal. App. 3d 70, 40 CCC 130, §22:199 – SO – California Workers’ Compensation A-114 Solomon v. WCAB, 24 CA3d 282, 37 CCC 203 (1972), §23:60 Soltero v. De......
-
Judgments: post-trial dispositions, decisions and other matters (interest, costs, credit, clerical error, enforcement, commutation and restitution)
...injury in Escamilla v. Cacique, Inc. 2018 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 49 (BPD 2018). The Board relied on Soliz v. Spielman (1974) 44 Cal. App. 3d 70, 40 CCC130, and El Katan v. Barrett Business Services, Inc. , 2013 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 41 (2013 NPD), which held that an employer has no......