Case Name:	Carrillo v. Wiberg Corporation of California		02/25/2011
Summary:	ARTHUR CARRILLO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WIBERG CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. Frank DeLaFuente filled in for Carrillo and was told he would have the position until Carrillo came back to work. Since the release did not state Carrillo could return to driving, the company asked Carrillo to provide a more specific release. Welzel instructed Ortega to call Carrillo and to reinstate him, but Ortega did not have a chance to reinstate Carrillo because he was informed Carrillo was looking for another job. Carrillo Asks for a Job Reference and Does Not Return to Work The Wiberg witnesses, including Welzel, Liczyk, Ortega, and Sylvia Cervantes, the California facility's office manager, all testified the company did not terminate Carrillo.
Note:	A disabled employee who quit his job before his employer had a chance to start the interactive process does not have a cause of action under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	B219431
WCC Citation:	WCC 37222011 CA

Case Name:	Carrillo-Torres v. Bergen Part 1/2		03/28/2018
Summary:	.             A144704 .             (Alameda County Super. .           Once Bergen and KL Construction executed the contract, Bergen wrote an initial deposit check to KL Construction for $1,000. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .           On November 15, 2012, Torres filed a complaint against Bergen alleging one cause of action for premises liability and negligence. .           Bergen’s counsel maintained Bergen was protected from liability under Privette because she hired KL Construction, a licensed and insured contractor, who hired Gonzalez, and because Bergen exercised no control over project safety. .           As noted, Torres also contends Bergen schemed with KL Construction to improperly reduce the costs of the project by having Bergen write checks to workers directly.
Note:
Citation:	A144704
WCC Citation:	Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG12656391

Case Name:	Carrillo-Torres v. Bergen Part 2/2		03/28/2018
Summary:	.           _________________________ Schulman, J. [¶] . [¶] . Because Bergen did not adequately explain the relevance of that ruling, and because the information is unnecessary to our analysis, we deny the request.   Elsewhere in his opening brief, Torres submits Bergen had a right under the contract to reject subcontractors. We reject Torres’s contention that Bergen must have hired Gonzalez (and thus must have been his employer) simply because she wrote two checks paying him.
Note:
Citation:	A144704
WCC Citation:	Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG12656391

Case Name:	Carter v. County of LA (En Banc)		06/19/1986
Summary:	Carolyn Carter v. County of Los Angeles John Weatherspoon v. St. Ferdinand's School Elaine Constancio v. Los Angeles County W. C. A. B. Nos. On this ground we will dismiss defendant's petition in 84 LA 504567. (Labor Code 5310) In Constancio v. County of Los Angeles (84 POM 95786), a C&R dated January 23, 1986 was submitted for approval. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that defendant's Petition for Reconsideration filed in Carter v. County of Los Angeles (84 LA 504567) on February 28, 1986 be, and it is hereby, DISMISSED. 83 LA 504567 (Carter ), 84 POM 95786 (Constancio ) and 85 VN 142848 (Weatherspoon ), be, and they are hereby, REMANDED for further proceedings and decision consistent with the opinion expressed herein.
Note:	No release for subseq. injury in rehab. unless it is a 'compensable consequence' of prior injury.
Citation:	51 CCC 255
WCC Citation:	WCC 25711986 CA

Case Name:	Carver v. WCAB		02/20/1990
Summary:	WILLIAM CARVER, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Racanelli, P. J. , with Newsom and Stein, JJ. , concurring. )On September 12, 1988, in response to petitioner's subsequent petition for reconsideration, the Board issued a second opinion affirming its July 21 result. Thus, we must conclude that there was no compliance with the Board rules requiring notice to a party. CIGA was created in 1969 to protect policyholders and claimants under policies of insurance issued by insurers who later become insolvent. The Board also expressed concern over CIGA's ability to defend such claims when employees of the insolvent may become unavailable.
Note:	Nonpayment penalties are benefits, not damages; UEF has burden of seeking reimbursement.
Citation:	217 Cal.App.3d 1539, 55 CCC 36
WCC Citation:	WCC 24471990 CA

Case Name:	Cascade Forest Products, Inc. v. WCAB		10/06/1998
Summary:	Cascade Forest Products, Inc. , Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, William R. Hines, Respondents. Workers' Compensation Judge Robert Kutz (WCJ) imposed a 10 percent penalty on the entire temporary disability award because Cascade Forest Products, Inc. (employer), terminated temporary disability prematurely. Dr. Soong stated employee was not a candidate for vocational rehabilitation and could return to work as a laborer without restrictions. Based upon Dr. Soong's report, employer, on October 4, 1996, filed and served by mail a petition to terminate liability for temporary disability. Employee's counsel objected by letter dated October 10, 1996, to termination, alleging Dr. Soong's opinion was based on inaccurate facts.
Note:	Employer may terminate benefits, then file petition to terminate benefits w/i 10 days; rebuttable presumption that TD extends 1 week following filing petition.
Citation:	63 CCC 1205
WCC Citation:	WCC 27731998 CA

Case Name:	CASE v. Brown		05/05/2011
Summary:	After briefing and argument, the court agreed with CASE that section 11873 prohibits the Governor from furloughing State Fund employees. Defendants argue that they have been prejudiced because the trial court's ruling in this action conflicts with the ruling in CASE I and the conflicting rulings create irreconcilable adjudications of the Governor's authority to furlough CASE employees at State Fund. Because the claims of State Fund employees were not adjudicated in CASE I, there is no conflicting adjudication as to those employees. That petition alleges that "CASE is the exclusive collective bargaining representative of legal professionals in State Bargaining Unit 2 . The order explained that CASE I raised issues "regarding the Governor's authority to order furloughs of [CASE] members, as employees of executive branch agencies.
Note:	A state governor does not have the authority to furlough employees of an autonomous, self-supporting organization.
Citation:	A125292
WCC Citation:	WCC 37592011 CA

Case Name:	Caso v. Nimrod Productions, Inc.		05/14/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN CHRISTOPHER CASO et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. NIMROD PRODUCTIONS, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents. McNicholas & McNicholas, John P. McNicholas and Robert P. Wargo; Joshua M. Merliss for Plaintiffs and Appellants Christopher Caso and Anna Marie Caso. Caso asserted claims for negligence; Anne Marie Caso alleged loss of consortium. For purposes of this summary judgment motion only, Caso does not dispute he was an employee of Touchstone. For purposes of the consolidated summary judgment motions only, Caso did not dispute he was an employee of Touchstone.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because a special employee relationship was established between plaintiffs and defendant, plaintiffs' cause of action for personal injury is barred by workers' compensation exclusive remedy.
Citation:	B198347
WCC Citation:	WCC 33572008 CA

Case Name:	Castro Valley Unif. School Dist. v. WCAB		05/05/1999
Summary:	rehab. In its Findings and Award on the RU appeal, the WCJ found: 1) that the RU should have approved the voc. rehab. rehab. The WCAB granted reconsideration, reviewed the record, adopted and incorporated the WCJ's report and recommendation.
Note:	Employer liable for maintenance allowance absent giving notice confirming lack of modified/alternate work; 139.5 cap does not apply until notice given.
Citation:	64 CCC 668
WCC Citation:	WCC 27931999 CA

Case Name:	Catalina Car Wash vs. DIR		01/08/2003
Summary:	CATALINA CAR WASH, INC. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT, Defendant and Respondent. On May 3, 2000, the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (Division), represented by Deputy Labor Commissioner Diana Chen, conducted an inspection at Catalina Car Wash on Beverly Boulevard in Los Angeles. The agent's cover letter stated an invoice was enclosed for the deposit premium, and asked Catalina to "[p]lease remit payment within 10 days. "The hearing officer concluded the evidence established Catalina did not have a current workers' compensation insurance policy in effect on May 3, 2000. Page 10} In sum, since Catalina was insured at the time the stop order was issued, no basis exists for a penalty assessment, and the judgment against Catalina must be reversed.
Note:	Coverage exists as matter of law where parties intended and no penalty attaches despite lack of documentation.
Citation:	105 Cal.App.4th 162
WCC Citation:	WCC 29132003 CA