Davis v. Corvel Corp. CA4/1

── Davis v. Corvel Corp. CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 20, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/20/26 Davis v. Corvel Corp. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BRIANNA DAVIS, D085457 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 37-2023- v. 00004740-CU-NP-NC) CORVEL CORPORATION et al., Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Cynthia A. Freeland, Judge. Affirmed. Marcus Jackson; Gelb Law and Yisrael Gelb for Plaintiff and Appellant. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, Marty B. Ready and Gary S. Pancer for Defendants and Respondents, Corvel Corporation and Rob Maag. Lotz, Doggett & Rawers, Jeffrey S. Doggett, Kimberlee Rawers and Cassandra F. Robinson for Defendant and Respondent, Dr. Patrick O’Meara. Brianna Davis appeals from orders dismissing defendants Corvel Corporation (Corvel), Rob Maag, and Dr. Patrick O’Meara (Dr. O’Meara) following the sustaining of their demurrers as to Davis’s third amended complaint (TAC). Davis asserts the trial court erred in concluding that her claims were precluded by the workers’ compensation exclusivity doctrine. We conclude that the exclusivity doctrine precludes the asserted claims and therefore affirm the orders of dismissal. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Allegations in the TAC “Because ‘[t]his case comes to us after the sustaining of a general demurrer . . . , we accept as true all the material allegations” in the operative TAC. (Carles J. Vacanti, M.D., Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (2001) 24 Cal.4th 800, 807 (Vacanti).) Therein, Davis alleged as follows: Davis injured her back, neck and legs while working as an EMT at the Tri-City Medical Center on May 15, 2018. She filed a workers’ compensation claim based on the injury. A couple of months later, Davis suffered severe pain and was medically limited to working modified duty from July 26, 2018 until August 31, 2018. By October 29, 2018, Davis was working a modified schedule of three 4-hour shifts per week. In late November 2018 an unnamed doctor determined that Davis’s back and leg pain were caused by an industrial injury. In January 2019, Davis began working three 8-hour shifts per week. However, on February 8, 2019, she was sent home as her employer’s policy was to give modified duty for no more than 90 days. That same month, Dr. O’Meara completed an evaluation and indicated that Davis was not disabled. As a result, in March, Davis “was directed to return to working full duty with no restrictions.” According to the TAC, Corvel—a company that provided workers’ compensation claims administration services for Tri-City Medical Center— and Maag—Corvel’s claims adjuster—pressured Dr. O’Meara to alter his medical findings to state that Davis was not disabled, that her injury did not require further medical treatment, and that she required no work 2 restrictions, so that Corvel could deny Davis continued worker’s compensation benefits. Davis returned to work on March 8, 2019, but she continued to suffer “lots of pain attempting to perform the full duties of her job.” On May 25, 2019, while working, Davis suffered a second industrial injury when she performed chest compressions intermittently for over two hours. On May 28, 2019, D