Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 3600
An employer's duty to provide workers' compensation benefits arises from Labor Code section 3600, which imposes joint and several liability on all employers of the injured worker.
The duty applies to any and all employers of the injured worker, and their liability is joint and several, but joint and several liability alone does not create privity for res judicata purposes.
From the decision · page 6An employer's duty to provide workers' compensation benefits arises from Labor Code
section 36006, which states that in cases where the "conditions of compensation" are present,
"[l]iability for the compensation provided by this division...shall, without regard to negligence,
exist against an employer for any injury sustained by his or her employees arising out of and in the
course of the employment..." (Lab. Code, § 3600.) This duty to provide compensation applies to
any and all employers of the injured worker, and their liability is joint and several.7
DKN v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 61 Cal.4th 813
Claim preclusion applies only to the relitigation of the same cause of action between the same parties or those in privity with them.
The court held that joint and several liability does not create privity, and that privity requires an identity or community of interest with adequate representation in the first suit.
From the decision · page 6"[C]laim preclusion applies only to the relitigation of the same cause of action between the
same parties or those in privity with them." (DKN, supra, 61 Cal.4th., at p. 825, emphasis in the
original.) Bovee was not a party to the C&R, nor in privity with McCandless: "[j]oint and several
liability alone does not create such a closely aligned interest between co-obligors [for privity]. The
liability of each joint and several obligor is separate and independent, not vicarious or derivative."
(DKN, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 826, emphasis added.) Therefore, and contrary to Bovee's apparent
contention, whether applicant's claims "involve the same primary right is beside the point.
(citation)" (Ibid.) "[J]oint and several liability does not implicate the "primary rights" doctrine."
(Id., at p. 818.) "This conclusion is entirely consistent with the settled rule that joint and several
obligors may be sued in separate actions. (citation)." (Ibid.)
Castillo v. Glenair, Inc., 23 Cal.App.5th 262
Privity requires sharing an identity or community of interest with adequate representation in the first suit, and circumstances such that the nonparty should reasonably have expected to be bound by the first suit.
The court in Castillo found privity based on an interdependent relationship with respect to payment of wages and agency relationship, which was not present here.
From the decision · page 4Defendant did not present any evidence or testimony to support any
interdependence between McCandless and Bovee. As such, even under a subject
matter analysis, the undersigned does not find the parties were in privity.
Defendant cites to this WCJ's citing of an employment dispute as between the
parties. This was but one factor supporting a lack of interdependence and that
the parties' interests were at odds with one another. Moreover, if the parties were
in privity as alleged, Defendant could have presented McCandless as a witness.
Instead, the only argument presented to support the parties were privies is that
the subject matter is the same. Moreover, the Castillo court also defined privity
as "the sharing of `an identity or community of interest,' with `adequate
representation' of that interest in the first suit, and circumstances such that the
nonparty `should reasonably have expected to be bound' by the first suit.
Castillo supra at 277.