Case Name:	Allied Interstate, Inc. v. Sessions Payroll Management, Inc.		02/16/2012
Summary:	ALLIED INTERSTATE, INC. v. SESSIONS PAYROLL MANAGEMENT, INC. ALLIED INTERSTATE, INC. , Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SESSIONS PAYROLL MANAGEMENT, INC. , Defendant and Appellant. The payroll operations continued under the dba Sessions Payroll Management until 2008, at which time Heffernan returned Sessions to Knight's ownership. The policy identified "Sessions Payroll Management, Inc. " as the insured, stated it covered Sessions' liability to its employees, not "the liability of any [other] employer," and obligated Sessions to inform SCIF immediately when the information contained in the declarations regarding Sessions' operations was no longer accurate. *fn4 To determine the experience rating applicable to the policy, SCIF forwarded Sessions' payroll and operations information to the Workers' Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau (the Rating Bureau). Garcia met with Heffernan and Guido Dito, Sessions' risk manager, examined the company's payroll, employment, and insurance records, and reported her findings to SCIF.
Note:	State Compensation Insurance Fund properly applied a 121% experience modifier to a Burbank payroll company that serves the movie industry.
Citation:	B226134
WCC Citation:	WCC 38592012 CA

Case Name:	Allied Waste Industries, et al. v. WCAB (Rojas)		12/06/2010
Summary:	ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC. , et al. Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and ROGELIO ROJAS, Respondents. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Rogelio Rojas (applicant) was seriously injured while working as a garbage truck driver for petitioner Allied Waste Industries, Inc. The ALJ ordered additional medical treatment for applicant and awarded counsel a total of $386,515. 32 in attorney fees. However, the Board rejected respondent's challenge to the COLA calculation, concluding that it too was constrained by the Duncan decision. DISCUSSION Before embarking on our analysis of petitioner's claim, we briefly review some fundamentals of the workers' compensation system.
Note:	A claimant's cost-of-living adjustments should not begin until the January 1 following his date of injury.
Citation:	C064914
WCC Citation:	WCC 36872010 CA

Case Name:	Allison v. WCAB		05/27/1999
Summary:	OPINION CROSKEY, J. - Petitioner Carol Allison (Allison) seeks relief from an order of a workers' compensation judge which directed her to answer deposition questions relating to her general past medical history. Factual and Procedural Background Allison is the applicant in the worker's compensation case entitled Allison v. Del Amo Mobile Homes Estates and bearing case No. POM 234030, which is pending before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). While Allison was recuperating from surgery to her wrist, Del Amo noticed her deposition, which was taken in December 1997. Allison then filed a petition for removal to the WCAB pursuant to section 5310 fn. He argued that without a final order as to admissibility, no irreparable harm or prejudice to Allison [72 Cal. App. 4th 659] has occurred, and he recommended against removal to the WCAB.
Note:	WCJ's have authority to hear and rule on discovery disputes.
Citation:	72 Cal.App.4th 654, 64 CCC 624
WCC Citation:	WCC 26011999 CA

Case Name:	Almaraz v. Environmental Recovery Services (II)		09/03/2009
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. ADJ1078163 (BAK 0145426) OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) MARIO ALMARAZ, Applicant, vs. ENVIRONMENTAL RECOVERY SERVICES (a. k. a. ENVIROSERVE); and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant(s). BACKGROUND In the Almaraz case, applicant sustained a November 5, 2004 back injury, while employed as a truck driver. We granted reconsideration in both the Almaraz and Guzman cases and consolidated them for our February 3, 2009 en banc decision. In both Almaraz and Guzman, we invited any interested person or entity to file and serve an amicus curiae brief by May 1. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (en banc) in Almaraz v. Environmental Recovery Services, Case No. ADJ1078163 (BAK 0145426), that the Findings of Fact and Award of April 23, 2008 is AMENDED such that Findings of Fact Nos.
Note:	[En Banc] The language of Labor Code section 4660(c) unambiguously means that a permanent disability rating established by the Schedule is rebuttable.
Citation:	ADJ1078163
WCC Citation:	WCC 35632009 CA

Case Name:	Almaraz vs. Environmental Recovery Services (SCIF); Guzman vs. Milpitas Unified School Dist (Keenan)		02/03/2009
Summary:	OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) ===================== Case No.    ADJ3341185 (SJO 0254688) JOYCE GUZMAN, Applicant, vs. MILPITAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Permissibly Self-Insured; and KEENAN & ASSOCIATES, Adjusting Agent, Defendant(s). The Almaraz Case Applicant, Mario Almaraz, sustained an admitted industrial injury to his back on November 5, 2004, while employed as a truck driver by Environmental Recovery Services (a. k. a. Enviroserve), insured by defendant, State Compensation Insurance Fund. The Guzman Case Applicant, Joyce Guzman, sustained an admitted industrial injury to her bilateral upper extremities during a cumulative period ending on April 11, 2005, while employed as a secretary by defendant, the Milpitas Unified School District (adjusted by Keenan & Associates). In accordance with the discussion above, we specifically conclude that the AMA Guides portion of the 2005 Schedule is rebuttable. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Almaraz v. Environmental Recovery Services, Case No. ADJ1078163 (BAK 0145426), and Guzman v. Milpitas Unified School District, Case No. ADJ3341185 (SJO 0254688), are CONSOLIDATED for the limited purpose of issuing a joint opinion.
Note:	(1) the AMA Guides portion of the 2005 Schedule is rebuttable; (2) the AMA Guides portion of the 2005 Schedule is rebutted by showing that an impairment rating based on the AMA Guides would result in a permanent disability award that would be inequitable, disproportionate, and not a fair and accurate measure of the employees permanent disability; and (3) when an impairment rating based on the AMA Guides has been rebutted, the WCAB may make an impairment determination that considers medical opinions that are not based or are only partially based on the AMA Guides.
Citation:	ADJ1078163 (BAK 0145426); ADJ3341185 (SJO 0254688)
WCC Citation:	WCC 34892009 CA

Case Name:	Alonzo v. Brennan		08/24/2011
Summary:	SHAWNA ALONZO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CASEY BEAR BRENNAN et al. , Defendants and Appellants. At the time of the accident, Alonzo was employed by Children's Hospital of Orange County (CHOC). The ambulance was being operated by defendants Casey Bear Brennan and Filyn Corporation, doing business as Lynch Ambulance. TRM alleged that CHOC was self-insured for workers' compensation benefits, and that Alonzo was injured as a result of defendants' negligent operation of the ambulance in which she was riding, requiring CHOC to provide benefits to Alonzo. Alonzo's attorney submitted a declaration in support of the motion, indicating that his firm had a 40 percent contingency fee agreement with Alonzo.
Note:	A hospital employee is entitled to $38,169 in attorney fees because she prevailed in a third-party suit that also helped her employer.
Citation:	B222327
WCC Citation:	WCC 37922011 CA

Case Name:	Alvarez v. Seaside Transportation Services LLC		07/20/2017
Summary:	Filed 7/20/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT .             BERNIE ALVAREZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             SEASIDE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES LLC et al. , Defendants and Respondents. .             B275980 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Plaintiff and appellant Bernie Alvarez was injured at work when he drove a maintenance van into a shipping container. Evergreen contracted with Marine Terminals Corporation dba Ports America (Ports America), Seaside Transportation Services, LLC (Seaside), and PCMC to provide services at the terminal. * .           WE CONCUR: .           FLIER, J.
Note:
Citation:	B275980
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC538128

Case Name:	Alvarez v. WCAB		05/14/2010
Summary:	Note: Superceded by Alvarez v. WCAB (SCIF), B218847, 08/12/2010 Filed 5/14/10 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE CARLOS ALVAREZ, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND et al. , Respondents. Carlos Alvarez (Alvarez or petitioner), her widower and guardian at litem of their two minor children, filed a claim for workers' compensation death benefits, alleging that Parades's death was caused by her work. Alvarez subsequently filed a petition objecting to the ex parte communication between Dr. Miller and defense counsel. )"*fn5 The WCAB added that the ex parte communication related back to an administrative matter discussed at the deposition, which was not ex parte. The WCAB also concluded that section 4062. 3 is concerned with a party initiating an ex parte communication, which did not occur here.
Note:	[Superceded] Section 4062.3 expressly prohibits ex parte communications with a panel qualified medical evaluator, with the only exception being for communications by the employee or deceased employee's dependent in connection with an examination, and in the event of unauthorized ex parte communication permits the aggrieved party to obtain a new evaluation from another panel qualified medical evaluator.
Citation:	B218847
WCC Citation:	WCC 36212010 CA

Case Name:	Alvarez v. WCAB (SCIF)		08/12/2010
Summary:	Carlos Alvarez (Alvarez or petitioner), her widower and guardian at litem of their two minor children, filed a claim for workers' compensation death benefits, alleging that Parades's death was caused by her work. Alvarez noted that the new qualified medical evaluator regulations also prohibit all ex parte communications and that a single violation may result in a penalty. The WCAB said that even if the determination of the issue was not a final order, it would have denied the petition for removal of the matter to the WCAB. The WCAB also concluded that section . 3 is concerned with a party initiating an ex parte communication, which did not occur here. Alvarez, in seeking judicial review of the order denying reconsideration and dismissing the petition for removal to the WCAB, requests that order be annulled.
Note:	Section 4062.3 expressly prohibits ex parte communications with a panel QME, with no exception based on the initiator of the communication or for 'administrative' matters. Nevertheless, because a certain degree of informality in workers' compensation procedures has been recognized, not every conceivable ex parte communication permits a party to obtain a new evaluation from another panel QME.
Citation:	B218847
WCC Citation:	WCC 36562010 CA

Case Name:	Alvis v. McIntyre		07/30/2008
Summary:	The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the employers (Pat Thomaselli, Thomaselli Construction, Robert McIntyre and McIntyre Enterprises), and Alvis timely appealed from the ensuing judgment. Robert McIntyre, doing business as McIntyre Enterprises (collectively, McIntyre) answered in part by denying he was Alvis's employer; he also alleged he had compensation insurance and Alvis had filed a compensation claim, therefore this suit was barred by the workers compensation remedy. For example, Alvis claimed McIntyre did not post proper workplace notices, and did not timely give Alvis a claim form. Alvis filed a "supplement," describing a form McIntyre filed with SCIF in which he said Alvis was not his employee but was working "per subcontract" for Thomaselli; Alvis asserted that Thomaselli had variously claimed to be Alvis's employer, that McIntyre was Alvis's employer and that Thomaselli was Alvis's "special employer," and argued that this raised a triable issue as to who was his employer. Alvis describes the following purported violations by McIntyre: (1) McIntyre did not post the appropriate compensation notices at the jobsite; (2) McIntyre did not promptly give Alvis a claim form after learning of the injury; (3) McIntyre failed to return a completed form to Alvis; (4) McIntyre failed to ensure prompt payment to Alvis of his benefits; (5) McIntyre failed to tell Alvis his rights under the compensation system; and (6) McIntyre failed to provide a safe jobsite.
Note:	[Unpublished] In an effort to avoid the exclusivity provisions of the workers compensation scheme, there is no theory in which plaintiff can prevail against defendants listed as employers on plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff could have, but did not, move to amend his complaint; his failure to do so means he is stuck with the complaint as pleaded.
Citation:	C055102
WCC Citation:	WCC 34042008 CA