Padron

Padron v. Osoy

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 29, 2025B333512MCalifornia7,501 words

Opinion

Opinion

Weingart, J.

INTRODUCTION

Hugo Osoy employed Pablo Arredondo Padron to make improvements to Osoy’s home. Before Padron completed the project, he fell from a ladder and was injured. When Padron sued Osoy for negligence, the trial court granted summary judgment in Osoy’s favor, finding Padron’s claims for his on-the-job injuries were exclusively covered by workers’ compensation. Padron now appeals. Labor Code 1 section 3351, subdivision (d) (section 3351(d)) establishes a default rule that workers’ compensation exclusively covers individuals such as Padron who are employed by owners or occupants of a “residential dwelling” to perform “duties [that] are incidental to the ownership, maintenance, or use of the dwelling . . . or . . . are personal and not in the course of the trade, business, profession, or occupation of the owner or occupant.” (Ibid.) Section 3352, subdivision (a)(8)(A) (section 3352(a)(8)(A)) creates an exception to that default rule, excluding from workers’ compensation coverage a worker whose employment within the 90 days preceding the accident “was, or was contracted to be, for less than 52 hours.” (Ibid.) The central question in this appeal is the meaning of section…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.