Can an employer be held liable for emotional distress resulting in disability under the exclusive remedy provisions of workers' compensation law?

"A determination whether a cause of action is barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the workers' compensation law must take into account not only the facts alleged (i.e., of physical injury) but also their relation to the scope and purposes of the workers' compensation statutory scheme." (Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 13, 276 Cal.Rptr. 303, 801 P.2d 1054.)

" '[T]he basis of compensation and the exclusive remedy provisions is an injury sustained and arising out of the course of employment....' [Citation.] Second, if the injuries did arise out of and in the course of the employment, the exclusive remedy provisions apply notwithstanding that the injury resulted from the intentional conduct of the employer, and even though the employer's conduct might be characterized as egregious. '[A]n employee suffering emotional distress causing disability may not avoid the exclusive remedy provisions of the Labor Code by characterizing the employer's decisions as manifestly unfair, outrageous, harassment, or intended to cause emotional disturbance resulting in disability.' [Citation.] Further, we noted that the legal theory supporting such exclusive remedy provisions is a presumed 'compensation bargain,' pursuant to which the employer assumes liability for industrial personal injury or death without regard to fault in exchange for limitations on the amount of that liability. The employee is afforded relatively swift and certain payment of benefits to cure or relieve the effects of industrial injury without having to prove fault but, in exchange, gives up the wider range of damages potentially available in tort. [Citations.]" (Shoemaker v. Myers, supra, 52 Cal.3d at pp. 15-16, 276 Cal.Rptr. 303, 801 P.2d 1054.)