Case Name:	Dickey v. WCAB		11/05/1990
Summary:	WILLIAM H. DICKEY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CITY OF MORRO BAY et al. , Respondents. About two months after that injury, applicant was hired as a fire extinguisher serviceman by defendant Wayco Fire Extinguishers (Wayco). Applicant claimed workers' compensation benefits, including temporary disability indemnity for the three industrial injuries. They also stipulated applicant was an active fire fighter as defined in Labor Code section 4458 'at the time of his claimed injuries. 'If temporary disability indemnity were awarded at the maximum rate here, the rate would be $224 a week, rather than $120. 68 a week.
Note:	Firefighter entitled to max TD rate despite multiple injuries.
Citation:	224 Cal.App.3d 1460, 55 CCC 410
WCC Citation:	WCC 23801990 CA

Case Name:	Dickinson v. Allstate Insurance Co.		04/19/2013
Summary:	DICKINSON v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY ERIC DICKINSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Ballard Spahr, Naomi Young, Lawrence J. Gartner and John R. Carrigan, Jr. , for Defendant and Appellant Allstate Insurance Company and Defendants and Respondents Allstate Insurance Company and Eric Jentgen. Dickinson was "grandfathered" into the Allstate workforce when Allstate bought the auto insurance lines of CNA Insurance. *fn15 At a posttrial hearing, Allstate asked to have the judgment entered only against Allstate on the ground that Allstate, not Jentgen personally, was responsible for firing Dickinson, and so only Allstate, not Jentgen personally, could be responsible for self-publication regarding the reason Dickinson was fired. Dickinson appealed this ruling, arguing that Jentgen should be personally liable, along with Allstate, for the $2,000 in damages Dickinson obtained on the self-publication claim.
Note:	A former field claims adjuster's failure to introduce into evidence a right-to-sue letter from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing was fatal to his Fair Employment and Housing Act claims.
Citation:	G045033
WCC Citation:	WCC 40052013 CA

Case Name:	Dietz v. Meisenheimer & Herron		09/17/2009
Summary:	I INTRODUCTION In January 2004, Attorney William K. Dietz filed this action against Meisenheimer & Herron and Meisenheimer, Herron & Steele (Meisenheimer). Dietz further alleged that Meisenheimer breached an agreement between Meisenheimer and Dietz to pay Dietz 25 percent of any contingency fee that Meisenheimer might receive in the Vital matter. Dietz claimed that Meisenheimer paid Dietz only $50,000 rather than the $310,000 that Dietz alleged Meisenheimer owed him. Dietz claimed that as a result of these actions, Meisenheimer had breached a contract with Dietz. In December 2006, Dietz filed the operative first amended complaint in which he alleged that Meisenheimer had breached an oral contract with Dietz to pay Dietz 25 percent of any contingency fee Meisenheimer might receive in the Vital matter.
Note:	It was not improper for the trial court to balance the competing interests of the parties in determining whether to dismiss appellant's action in its entirety. Dismissal of a plaintiff's claim based on the due process concerns espoused in General Dynamics and its progeny is reserved for the rarest of cases.
Citation:	D052463
WCC Citation:	WCC 35672009 CA

Case Name:	Diggle v. Sierra Sands Unified Sch. Dist.		10/07/2005
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. BAK 0138299 WILMA DIGGLE, Applicant, vs. SIERRA SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Permissibly Self-Insured; and SELF-INSURED SCHOOLS OF CALIFORNIA (Adjusting Agent), Defendant(s). An en banc decision of the Appeals Board is binding precedent on all Appeals Board panels and WCJs. On August 21, 1997, a stipulated Award issued which determined, among other things, that this injury caused permanent disability of 12%. Applicant was awarded permanent disability indemnity in the total sum of $3,994. 45 (payable at the rate of $104. 43 per week for 38. 25 weeks). At trial, the parties stipulated that applicant's overall spinal permanent disability is now 70%, after adjustment for age and occupation, but before apportionment.
Note:	En banc decision is binding precedent on all Appeals Board Panels and WCJs.
Citation:	70 CCC 1480
WCC Citation:	WCC 31262005 CA

Case Name:	Dimmig v. WCAB		03/31/1972
Summary:	MARTHA R. DIMMIG et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CALIFORNIA CASUALTY INDEMNITY EXCHANGE, Respondents In Bank. There is some dispute, however, over petitioners' claim that Dimmig was "required" to obtain his bachelor's degree as a condition of his employment. The executives indicated that Dimmig was hired because of his previous job experience in contract administration and because he was considered promotable. Respondents did not contradict, however, the substantial testimony that Dimmig believed a bachelor's degree was required for his continued employment with Memorex. Keith D. Chapel, a friend of Dimmig's, testified that Dimmig had indicated to him that "he [Dimmig] had been hired on the premise that he would finish his degree, because the job required a degree. "
Note:	Going and coming: commuting to and from work not in scope of employment.
Citation:	6 Cal. 3d 860
WCC Citation:	WCC 28511972 CA

Case Name:	DIR v. California State Personnel Board		10/05/2011
Summary:	CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD, Defendant and Respondent; OLGA H. GARAU, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. Proc. , §§ 1094, 1094. 5. )*fn1 The petition seeks to set aside the decision of the California State Personnel Board (the Board) reinstating respondent Olga H. Garau to her former position with the Department. In our decision Garau v. California State Personnel Board (Oct. 14, 2009, B210335 [nonpub. (California Department of Industrial Relations v. California State Personnel Board (B230790). )In her respondent's brief and at oral argument, Garau made repeated references to documents included in the record of her pending appeal (California Department of Industrial Relations v. California State Personnel Board (B230790)), without identifying them as such or requesting that we take judicial notice of them.
Note:	The Department of Industrial Relations is not procedurally barred from challenging a decision ordering it to reinstate a Division of Occupational Safety and Health attorney, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled in an unpublished decision.
Citation:	B228794
WCC Citation:	WCC 38092011 CA

Case Name:	Ditler v. WCAB		05/18/1982
Summary:	TERRY DITLER, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al. , Respondents. Ditler contends that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board erred in apportioning 50 percent of his overall disability to preexisting nonindustrial causes. On October 3, 1977, Ditler filed an application for adjudication of claim before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. But, because of the intervention of job problems this was up--the pattern was upset . . . . ' Dr. Groesbeck opined that Ditler was carrying a partial permanent disability. These facts do not constitute substantial evidence that Ditler suffered from a 'labor disabling' preexisting disability.
Note:	Doctor's testimony that worker would ultimately suffer disability was too speculative.
Citation:	131 Cal.App.3d 803, 47 CCC 492
WCC Citation:	WCC 25511982 CA

Case Name:	DMS Services, Inc. v. Superior Court of LA County		05/15/2012
Summary:	DMS SERVICES, INC. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY DMS SERVICES, INC. et al. , Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; ZURICH SERVICES CORP. et al. , Real Parties in Interest. The court ordered arbitration of each of those claims based on an arbitration clause in DMS's workers' compensation insurance agreements with Zurich Insurance. However, Zurich Insurance also required DMS to sign annual deductible agreements, which purported to supersede any deductible endorsement to the workers' compensation policies. Zurich sought more than $3. 5 million in payment from DMS for premiums and reimbursement of workers' compensation insurance claim deductibles. DMS alleged ZSC had breached its obligations as a third party administrator by mishandling claims made against the policies, causing DMS to overpay several claims.
Note:	A third-party workers' compensation claims administrator could not compel arbitration of a client's breach-of-contract action pursuant to an agreement between the client and its insurance carrier.
Citation:	B235819
WCC Citation:	WCC 38952012 CA

Case Name:	DMV v. IAC		02/16/1948
Summary:	DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION and JOHN M. REED, Respondents. The California Highway Patrol is subject to the special provisions contained in Labor Code, section 4800. However, there are provisions for special payments to policemen and firemen who are members of the State Employees' Retirement Systems. [3] The rights of applicants for compensation are governed by the provisions of the section in force at the time of the injury. [83 Cal. App. 2d 677] [4] In construing a statute liberally courts are not permitted to pervert its purpose.
Note:	Indemnity, whether temporary or permanent, is not paid concurrently with salary.
Citation:	83 Cal.App.2d 671, 13 CCC 23
WCC Citation:	WCC 26851948 CA

Case Name:	Doerflinger v. WCAB		10/25/1994
Summary:	David Doerflinger, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, United Parcel Service et al. , Respondents. The compromise and release further provided: 'Sums to include claims for interest if paid within 20 days of service of order approving. ''In general, the [Board] has broad equitable powers with respect to matters within its jurisdiction [Citation. ]'Given that the Board declined to determine this question, ordinarily we would remand the cause to the Board for further proceedings. Because the facts are undisputed in the interests of judicial economy we shall decide the question as matter of law.
Note:	Payments on a C&R and 'compensation' under the Code; Penalty may be based on failure to pay interest.
Citation:	59 CCC 834
WCC Citation:	WCC 3921994 CA