Wedeck

Wedeck v. Unocal Corp.

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 985·59 Cal. App. 4th 848·69 Cal. Rptr. 2d 501·62 Cal. Comp. Cases 1567·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9055
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 2, 1997A071683California5,552 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kline, J.

Rowena Wedeck appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent Unocal Corporation. On appeal, she challenges the trial court’s determination that Unocal was her special employer as a matter of law and that she was, therefore, statutorily barred from bringing a tort action against Unocal for personal injuries received while she was working at Unocal. We shall affirm the judgment.

Factual and Procedural Background

In May 1992 Wedeck began working for Lab Support, an agency in the business of placing technical employees with other companies on a temporary basis. In August 1992, Wedeck, who has a bachelor of science degree in chemistry, accepted an assignment through Lab Support to work at the Unocal refinery in Rodeo as a full-time chemist. Amy Conner (formerly O’Shaughnessy), who was the account manager for Lab Support, arranged for Wedeck’s work assignment at Unocal. That assignment was confirmed by a letter agreement from Lab Support to Unocal dated August 20, 1992, which set forth the terms and conditions of Wedeck’s assignment at Unocal. Paragraph 6 of the terms and conditions stated: “Customer and Lab Support agree that all personnel…

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.