Simkovich v.Evans
Filed 2/16/07 Simkovich v. Evans CA6
NOT TO BEPUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CaliforniaRules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing orrelying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, exceptas specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified forpublication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
INTHE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTHAPPELLATE DISTRICT
| MIKE SIMKOVICH,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
MARK H. EVANS,
Defendant and Respondent.
| H029600 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CV813052)
|
Appellant Mike Simkovich sued respondent MarkEvans for personal injuries after Simkovichfell off of Evans's roof while doing electrical work on Evans's home. Evans'shomeowners insurer agreed to provide workers' compensation benefits toSimkovich. Evans filed a motionfor summary judgment in the civil action, arguing that the civil action wasbarred because workers' compensation was Simkovich's exclusive remedy. Thecourt found that Simkovich was Evans's employee within the meaning of LaborCode[1]Section 3351, subdivision (d)[2]and granted summary judgment.
On appeal, Simkovich argues the court erredbecause he was not Evans's employee within the meaning of section 3351,subdivision (d) because the work he did for Evans was not â€
| Description | Appellant sued respondent for personal injuries after Appellant fell off of respondent's roof while doing electrical work on respondent's home. Respondent's homeowners insurer agreed to provide workers' compensation benefits to appellant. Respondent filed a motionfor summary judgment in the civil action, arguing that the civil action was barred because workers' compensation was Appellant's exclusive remedy. Thecourt found that appellant was respondent's employee within the meaning of Labor Code Section 3351, subdivision (d)and granted summary judgment. Court find no error and affirm the summary judgment. |
| Rating |
