California Court Provides Guidance On “Point Of Operation Guard” Exception Under Workers’ Compensation Law

A California appellate court dismissed an action brought under a state law exception to the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule, by which an employee may sue his employer if he was “injured as a result of the employer’s knowing removal of, or knowing failure to install, a point of operation guard on a power press.”  The dismissal further defined a “point of operation guard” under the exception, explaining that it was limited only to “[a]ny apparatus or device that keeps a worker’s hands or other body parts outside of the area where the die shapes material by impact or pressure while the worker is operating the power press.”

The plaintiff was injured during the course of his employment when a piece of metal allegedly dislodged from a swaging machine that he was working with and hit him in the eye.  The door to the swaging machine had been removed.  The plaintiff sued his employer under California Labor Code § 4558, asserting that he was “injured as a result of [his]employer’s knowing removal of, or knowing failure to install, a point of operation guard on a power press,” and argued that the dislodged swaging machine door constituted a “point of operation guard” that resulted in his injury.

Reversing the lower court’s denial of summary judgment, the appellate court found that the dislodged door could not constitute a “point of operation guard” under the exception.  The court explained that, as used in the statute, the definition of “point of operation guard” was limited only to an apparatus or device that keeps a worker’s hands or body parts outside of the area where the power press die shapes material by impact or pressure, not the power press generally.  In this case, the door of the swaging machine was not in place solely to prevent access and injury to a worker’s hands or body parts in the vicinity of where the die shapes the material.  Rather, it acted as a general barrier to power press mechanisms.  In particular, the court emphasized that the door was several inches away from the die and that the plaintiff was several feet away from the space where the dies shape the material when the accident occurred.  Thus, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, finding that as a matter of law the door was not a “point of operation guard” within the meaning of California law.