Case Name:	Cole v. Blue Cross		05/13/2009
Summary:	Ct. No. BC359846) JEANNETTE COLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Without elaboration, the letter recommended that Cole not be assigned to the Provider Services Department and that Cole not be assigned to two specific employees. In the conversations, Cole never discussed her medical condition with anyone at WellPoint, nor did Cole refer to an accommodation that she believed was required to enable her to return to work. However, Cole had no such rights because the uncontradicted evidence showed that Cole's position had been eliminated while Cole was on leave. 10 Further, Cole contends she was entitled to preference over other employees because she was disabled. Cole sued Blue Cross of California, an affiliate of WellPoint Companies, Inc.
Note:	[Unpublished] A worker who did not contact her employer for about three years before being terminated failed to raise a triable issue of fact in her Fair Employment and Housing Act suit against her employer.
Citation:	B206872
WCC Citation:	WCC 35222009 CA

Case Name:	Coleman v. Silverberg Plumbing Co.		06/13/1968
Summary:	CAROLYN Z. COLEMAN et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SILVERBERG PLUMBING CO. , Defendant and Respondent. * Plaintiffs Carolyn Z. Coleman and Patricia L. Coleman, a minor, by her guardian ad litem, appeal from a judgment entered upon a nonsuit granted in favor of defendant Silverberg Plumbing Company, a corporation, upon plaintiffs' written opening statement. Silverberg was performing plumbing work on such houses pursuant to a written contract between LISA and Silverberg. For wrongful death of Coleman, a presumptive employee of Silverberg, whose death was caused by Silverberg's presumptive negligence. During oral argument, plaintiffs' counsel conceded, 'As far as I know there is a standard employer's workmen's compensation policy insuring the Silverberg Plumbing Company for workmen's compensation liability to employees of Silverberg Plumbing Company. '
Note:	Lack of compensation for indep. contractors is not a
Citation:	263 Cal.App.2d 74, 33 CCC 906
WCC Citation:	WCC 24361968 CA

Case Name:	Colleran v. WCAB		12/16/2010
Summary:	(W. C. A. B. Nos. . ADJ4402731 [VNO 0460581]) PROCEEDINGS to review a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. Colleran was injured on April 28, 1999, in the course of her employment with the City. On December 2, 2008, Colleran filed a request for vocational rehabilitation benefits and services at the Rehabilitation Unit. Accordingly, we do not address whether Colleran was denied due process because the Board had not considered her answer to the City's petition for reconsideration. Colleran not only knew her remedy could be abolished, she knew it would be, and on what day, four years in advance.
Note:	An employer must pay authorized vocational rehabilitation benefits even though the statute allowing those benefits was repealed because it did not file an appeal before the effective date of the repeal.
Citation:	B220878
WCC Citation:	WCC 36932010 CA

Case Name:	Collins v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.		07/11/2012
Summary:	COLLINS v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY JAMES RUSSELL COLLINS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. Following a collision involving two Union Pacific Railroad Company (Union Pacific or defendant) trains, Hulcher responded to the derailment site. Union Pacific also made a motion to amend the judgment to reflect a set-off of $205,195. 16 against the damage award, for the workers' compensation lien which Hulcher assigned to Union Pacific. In the present case, the jury heard testimony from both Hulcher and Union Pacific employees describing the working relationship of Hulcher employees vis-à-vis Union Pacific derailments. Hulcher seeks Union Pacific approval before bringing equipment down to the derailment site and follows Union Pacific's directions at the site.
Note:	A California appellate court has upheld a $3.9 million jury verdict against the Union Pacific Railway for a workplace accident which shattered the face of a contractor's employee.
Citation:	E051218
WCC Citation:	WCC 39132012 CA

Case Name:	Colmenares vs. Braemar Country Club		02/20/2003
Summary:	FRANCISCO COLMENARES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BRAEMAR COUNTRY CLUB, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. In 1997, defendant Braemar Country Club (Braemar) terminated plaintiff Francisco Colmenares, who had been in its employ for 25 years. In 1972, plaintiff Colmenares began working for defendant Braemar as a general laborer. In July 1997, Braemar reassigned Colmenares from supervising a course maintenance crew to supervising a clubhouse construction project that involved heavy labor. Braemar moved for summary judgment on the ground that Colmenares had no "legally cognizable disability" because his back condition did not "substantially" limit a major life activity.
Note:	Under FEHA, as contrasted with ADA, plaintiff need show only 1) physiological disease or condition affecting a body system; 2) that limits ability to engage in major life activity.
Citation:	29 Cal.4th 1019
WCC Citation:	WCC 29462003 CA

Case Name:	Colony Ins. Co. v. First Specialty Ins. Corp.		05/18/2010
Summary:	Colony Insurance Company (Colony) appeals a judgment for equitable contribution in favor of First Specialty Insurance Corporation (First Specialty) and StarNet Insurance Company (StarNet). Colony issued subcontractor Mechanical a general liability policy (the Colony policy) that contained an additional insured endorsement insuring EWB under specified terms. After the settlement with Mechanical, only First Specialty and StarNet's causes of action against Colony for equitable contribution and declaratory relief remained to be tried. Colony is mistaken in asserting that the First Specialty and StarNet policies do not contain the same "other insurance" language. Colony acknowledges in its opening brief that the amount of damages sought by First Specialty and StarNet was "a set sum. "
Note:	A general liability insurer's policy exclusion for an additional insured was too vague to allow it to escape contribution to a $1.05 million settlement emanating from an injured subcontractor's negligence suit.
Citation:	D055213
WCC Citation:	WCC 36222010 CA

Case Name:	Coltherd v. WCAB		11/19/1990
Summary:	ELSIE COLTHERD, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, LANTANA HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING et al. , Respondents; ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Claimant and Respondent. Introduction Elsie Coltherd (petitioner), the widow of employee Brian Coltherd, has petitioned this court to review a decision and order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granting claimant and respondent St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company's (St. Paul's) application for a $10,000 lien on the workers' compensation death benefits of $95,000 awarded to petitioner and her children. Petitioner petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration of the trial judge's decision and order. The WCAB concluded that it had jurisdiction to allow a lien for medical treatment provided by reason of an industrial injury. The matter is remanded to WCAB for a determination of the reasonable attorneys' fees to be awarded petitioner's attorney.
Note:	No reimbursement to carrier for uninsured motorist benefits absent specific provision in policy.
Citation:	225 Cal.App.3d 455, 55 CCC 431
WCC Citation:	WCC 25261990 CA

Case Name:	Compton v. Superior Court of LA County		03/19/2013
Summary:	COMPTON v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY LEASA COMPTON Petioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; AMERICAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC et al. , Real Parties in Interest. AMS then propounded special interrogatories on Compton, which she never answered because the district court remanded the action to state court in February 2010. After remand to the superior court, AMS propounded more discovery requests, including form and special interrogatories, document production requests, and requests for admission. According to Compton, when she applied for a job with AMS, she met with Paula Palento, who Compton believed was an administrative assistant for the company. In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court discussed its earlier decision in Discover Bank v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 148 (Discover Bank).
Note:	Unconscionability is a defense to the enforcement of an entire contract, or particular provisions of a contract, including agreements to arbitrate disputes.
Citation:	B236669
WCC Citation:	WCC 39932013 CA

Case Name:	Conrad v. 105 St. Assoc., LLC		10/28/2008
Summary:	Conrad v 105 St. Assoc. , LLC NY Slip Op 08180 Decided on October 28, 2008 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. 105554/04 4405A 590118/05 [*1]Richard Conrad, Plaintiff, v Street Associates, LLC, Defendant-Appellant, BFC Construction Corp. , et al. , Defendants. 105 Street Associates, LLC, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, BFC Construction Corp. , et al. , Third-Party Plaintiffs, Larry E. Knight, Inc. , et al. , Third-Party Defendants, JEM Erectors, Inc. , Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. We reject 105 Street's additional argument for summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim against JEM based on the latter's failure to remove debris near the opening.
Note:	That the general contractor may have assumed responsibility for erecting a barricade around the opening did not, absent contractual provision to the contrary, absolve JEM of its contractual obligation to implement adequate safety measures itself.
Citation:	4405 105554/04 4405A 590118/05
WCC Citation:	WCC 34432008 CA

Case Name:	Consolidated Structural v. SCIF, et. al.		10/21/2002
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT CONSOLIDATED STRUCTURAL MATERIALS, INC. et al. ,Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND et al. ,Defendants and Respondents. The Parks Suit In the First Amended Complaint, the Parks Suit alleged that the decedent was an employee of CSM. State Fund further agreed to "defend at our expense any claim, proceeding or suit against [CSM] for benefits payable by this insurance. "However, State Fund "ha[d] no duty to defend a claim, proceeding or suit that is not covered by this insurance. "However, State Fund did not have to defend "a claim, proceeding or suit that is not covered by this insurance. "
Note:	Coverage B does not require a defense against a civil suit where allegations fall clearly within work comp exclusive remedy.
Citation:	Unpublished
WCC Citation:	WCC 28942002 CA