Gomez v. Essential Botanical

Gomez v. Essential Botanical

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

Maria Elena Gomez, personally and as personal representative of the Estate of Juan Gomez, Deceased,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

Essential Botanical Farms, L.C.,

Defendant and Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20030691-CA
 

F I L E D
(September 21, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 331

 

-----

Fourth District, Provo Department

The Honorable James R. Taylor

Attorneys: Thomas W. Seiler, Jared L. Anderson, and Ryan T. Peel, Provo, for Appellant

W. Mark Gavre and Angie Nelson, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Billings, Bench, and Greenwood.

PER CURIAM:

Maria Elena Gomez (Maria Elena) appeals the trial court's grant of Essential Botanical Farms, L.C.'s (Essential Botanical) motion for summary judgment, dismissing the action based upon the exclusive remedy provision of the Utah Workers' Compensation Act (the Act).

On August 17, 2000, Juan Gomez (Gomez) was killed in an accident that occurred during the course and within the scope of his employment. At the time of the accident, Gomez was employed by Young Living Farms, which is a registered dba of Essential Botanical. After the accident, workers' compensation benefits were provided to Maria Elena through Young Living Farms's insurance carrier.

Maria Elena subsequently filed a lawsuit against Essential Botanical, alleging claims for wrongful death. The trial court dismissed the suit on the basis of the exclusive remedy provision of the Act. See Utah Code Ann. § 34A-2-105(1)(2001).

On appeal, Maria Elena argues that Essential Botanical should be estopped from claiming protection under the Act due to the allegation that Young Living Farms was utilized as a dba for another entity as well. Essential Botanical asserts the trial court properly granted summary judgment pursuant to section 34A-2-105 of the Act.

Summary judgment is proper if there are no genuine issues as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c). We give a trial court's decision to grant summary judgment no deference and review it for correctness. See Norman v. Arnold, 2002 UT 81,¶15, 57 P.3d 997.

Maria Elena's argument fails under the plain language of the exclusivity provisions of the Act. "The right to recover compensation pursuant to this chapter for injuries sustained by an employee, whether resulting in death or not, shall be the exclusive remedy against the employer . . . ." Utah Code Ann. § 34A-2-105(1). "[T]he Act is the exclusive vehicle for recovery of compensation for injury or death, against the employer and other employees to the exclusion of any and all other civil liability whatsoever . . . and [the Act] bars all next of kin or dependents, or anyone else, from using any other means of recovery against employers and others named in and covered by the Act . . . ." Morrill v. J & M Constr. Co., 635 P.2d 88, 89 (Utah 1981).

It is undisputed that Gomez died as a result of injuries sustained in the course of his employment. Because Essential Botanical was doing business as Young Living Farms, the Act governs Maria Elena's claims, since she has sued the entity which employed Gomez; for purposes of the Act, Essential Botanical and Young Living Farms are one and the same. See id.; see generally Aragon v. Clover Club Foods Co., 857 P.2d 250, 256 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) ("[W]hen an injured worker asserts derivative liability, a parent corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary are to be considered a single employing unit for purposes of [exclusivity section]."). Maria Elena's tort action is therefore barred under the Act.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's grant of the motion for summary judgment.

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Russell W. Bench,

Associate Presiding Judge

______________________________

Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge