No fee unless we recoverHome & hospital visits

Common questions

“The guard had been removed from the machine.”

A missing guard can support a 50% increase the employer pays personally, and it frequently means a separate case against the equipment manufacturer.

Call now (213) 380-9310Free case review

Leer en español한국어로 보기

The short answer

This is one of the highest-value fact patterns in California workers’ compensation, and it usually produces two additional claims.

A 50% increase the employer pays personally, and a separate case against whoever made or maintained the equipment.

On this page

The 50%, and why it is fought so hard

The law increases your entire award by one-half where the injury was caused by the employer’s serious and willfulSerious and willful +50%, and uninsurable, so the employer pays personally. 12 months. misconduct.

The law forbids insuring against it. The employer writes that check personally — not the carrier. That is precisely why these are defended so aggressively, and it is also why they are worth pursuing.

What has to be shown: more than negligence. Knowledge of a dangerous condition and a conscious failure to act on it. A guard that was removed on purpose to speed production, a prior complaint that went unanswered, or a Cal/OSHA citation for the same condition is exactly that evidence.

Twelve months from the date of injuryDate of injury For a cumulative or occupational disease claim, the law sets it as when you first suffered disability and knew or should have known it was work-related — not when the wear began. Almost every deadline runs off this. to file. How these work.

The case against the manufacturer

Workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedyExclusive remedy Workers’ compensation is generally the only claim against your employer. It is not the only claim against anyone else. against your employer. It is not the exclusive remedy against the company that built the machine.

A product liability case does not require you to prove anyone was careless. It asks whether the product was defective — including whether it lacked a guard, an interlock, an emergency stop, or an adequate warning. And it pays for pain and suffering, which workers’ compensation does not.

In a machine injury the civil case is frequently larger than the comp claim. When a third-party case exists.

Preserve the machine. Today.

This is the single most time-critical thing on this page.

Equipment gets repaired, re-guarded, modified, sold, or scrapped within days of a serious injury — sometimes within hours. Once it is altered, the case against the manufacturer is enormously harder and sometimes gone.

Ask, in writing, today, that the equipment be preserved in its current condition and not modified. Send it to your employer and to the claims administratorClaims administrator / adjuster The person handling your claim for the insurer or self-insured employer.. Keep the copy. A written preservation request that is ignored is itself powerful evidence.

And photograph everything now — the machine, the missing guard, the mounting points where it used to be, the serial plate, the model number. From several angles.

What else to gather

The Cal/OSHA report, if one was made. Serious injuries are reportable, and an investigation produces findings.

Prior complaints. If anyone had raised the missing guard before, that is the knowledge element of § 4553.

The maintenance and repair records for that machine.

Witnesses. Coworkers who knew the guard was gone, and how long it had been gone.

And note what is not required

Your own carelessness does not reduce your workers’ compensation benefits. California is a no-fault system, and the fact that you were reaching into the machine does not defeat the claim. It was my fault.

It just happened

The first days, and what the law makes of how it happened.

Common Questions

Sources

Labor Code § 4553 (serious and willful misconduct — one-half increase)§ 5407 (twelve-month deadline)Insurance Code § 11661 (may not be insured against)Labor Code § 3600(a)(3) (no-fault)§ 3852 et seq. (third-party recovery and the employer’s lien)Labor Code § 6300 et seq. and 8 CCR § 3999 et seq. (machine guarding requirements).

General information about California law, not legal advice about your case.

Reviewed by Jamey Teitell, Partner & Trial Attorney · Last reviewed

Law Offices of Solov & Teitell, APC · (213) 380-9310

Printed from https://www.solovteitell.com/answers/there-were-no-safety-guards/ · Last reviewed

A SHORT CALL COSTS NOTHING

Tell us what happened

A short call costs nothing and commits you to nothing. No fee unless we recover, and you are not responsible for costs we advance if there is no recovery. Free consultation in English, Spanish, or Korean.

CALL US · WE CALL BACK(213) 380-9310Free case review