Claim Filed for Goldman Death Benefits

In a strange postscript to the O.J. Simpson legal saga, an Orange County attorney has filed a workers’ compensation claim against Mezzaluna restaurant in Brentwood, seeking to recover Ronald Lyle Goldman’s death benefits for the state of California.

Attorney Nick O’Malley is pressing his case even though the state agency that oversees such work-related disputes chose not to pursue the matter after Goldman was killed nearly three years ago. O’Malley filed the claim in the name of his assistant’s husband, using an obscure legal principle that allows private citizens to take legal action on behalf of the state.

O’Malley’s legal action drew angry reactions from Goldman’s family and their attorneys, who called the claim a scam to capitalize on Goldman’s death.

If O’Malley prevails, he could garner up to 15% of Goldman’s $95,000 death benefit--which by law would go to a special state fund for injured workers because Goldman had no dependents.

“Obviously, this guy sees an opportunity to make money for himself,” said Fred Goldman, Ronald’s father. “Clearly, he doesn’t care about anybody else.”

Goldman attorney Daniel Petrocelli questioned whether O’Malley had the authority to file the claim, and blasted O’Malley for taking the legal action without first contacting him and the Goldman family.

“It’s absolutely outrageous that he would file this claim in the name of Ronald Goldman,” Petrocelli said.

O’Malley said he decided to pursue the case at the urging of a judge in the workers’ compensation court in Santa Monica in November. At the time, O’Malley was arguing another case before the judge, and says he agreed to check into the Goldman case in hopes of boosting his standing with the jurist.

O’Malley said the judge also mentioned that the case appeared to involve a clear instance of an on-the-job death, a key element for a successful workers’ compensation case. Goldman, a Mezzaluna waiter at the time, was returning a pair of prescription glasses to Nicole Brown Simpson at her Bundy Drive condominium after a work shift when he was killed.

“The judge said somebody should look into the Ron Goldman matter,” said O’Malley, who devotes half of his Santa Ana law practice to workers’ compensation cases. “I didn’t file the claim from a do-gooder’s standpoint. I figured, ‘This is going to help [my] existing case.’ And I didn’t think there [would] be that much work involved.”

O’Malley made no apologies for seeking to collect on Goldman’s death, saying the case may even open up a new avenue to an untold number of others. “I’ve talked to my private investigator about looking into what’s out there,” he said.

O’Malley filed the claim Feb. 13 with the Santa Monica branch of the state Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board in the name of his assistant’s husband, Mark Trentacosta.

But he filed the case while he was in the midst of a one-month suspension by the State Bar of California. O’Malley was suspended for, among other things, incidents in 1994 in which he signed and filed a complaint using a fellow attorney’s name without gaining permission or informing his colleague, according to state bar records.

O’Malley acknowledged the suspension, but said paperwork ordering his leave arrived with no start date. He said he was unable to determine the beginning of his suspension until the third week of February.

Trentacosta said he was unfamiliar with the case’s specifics. He said he lent his name to the claim because he trusts O’Malley’s legal judgment, adding that he will not get any money for his involvement.

“Nick said he needed me to help him out,” said Trentacosta, a telemarketer from Westminster. “I usually don’t ask too many questions. I just want to do what’s right.”

Lawyers at the state Department of Industrial Relations, the agency that oversees workers’ compensation disputes, called O’Malley’s claim unprecedented. The agency has a special arm, the Death Without Dependents Unit, to handle cases like Goldman’s, in which a worker dies but leaves no heirs.

Attorneys from the unit now find themselves in unfamiliar territory: They have been ordered by the presiding judge of the workers’ compensation board in Santa Monica to join a case they once rejected. And now a third party--O’Malley--also will be working the case.

Lawyers for the unit decided not to pursue a workers’ compensation claim after Goldman’s death in June 1994, saying they lacked the staffing to handle the complex case. They also had questions about whether Goldman’s death occurred on the job, and they did not want their investigation to interfere with O.J. Simpson’s criminal trial at the time, said Vanessa Holton, assistant chief counsel with the Department of Industrial Relations.

Now, the lawyers find themselves scrambling to form a strategy. They will be meeting in the coming weeks to decide how to proceed. “This is an unusual situation on all sides,” said Holton, who supervises the attorneys and staff in the San Francisco-based unit.

However the case proceeds, its scope will be far narrower than those of Simpson’s two trials. All sides agree the key issue is whether Goldman died while on the job.

O’Malley said that Goldman’s death falls under a “special mission” rule in workers’ compensation law, meaning he was killed while performing a task for his employer, Mezzaluna--returning the sunglasses to Nicole Simpson.

But Mezzaluna owner Karim Souki said Goldman was acting on his own as a favor to Nicole Simpson. Souki said Goldman had already returned home, changed his clothes and was on his way to meet friends when he arrived at Nicole Simpson’s residence and encountered the killer.

“Ron’s death was absolutely not work-related,” Souki said. “The claim is false in every aspect.”

Other issues also must be resolved, including a disagreement over the one-year statute of limitations for filing such workers’ compensation claims. Questions remain over whether a claim must be filed within a year of an employee’s death or within a year of the date the employer notifies the state. Mezzaluna never reported the death to state officials, Souki said, because he believed Goldman did not die on the job.

In addition, questions must be resolved over whether the restaurant had workers’ compensation insurance at the time of Goldman’s death. On the claim form, O’Malley listed the state Uninsured Employers Fund as a defendant, saying he could not verify whether the restaurant had coverage. Souki maintains that his business was insured. State lawyers are looking into the matter.