Case Name:	Duffy v. Technicolor Entertainment Services		01/29/2009
Summary:	[U] Duffy v. Technicolor Entertainment Services, Inc. , No. B196126 (Cal. App. Dist. 2 01/29/2009) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE No. B196126 January 29, 2009 EUGENE DUFFY, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. TECHNICOLOR ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, INC. Loeb & Loeb, Scott M. Lidman; Dreier Stein & Kahan, Fred B. Griffin; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Timothy T. Coates and Lillie Hsu for Defendant and Appellant Technicolor Entertainment Services, Inc. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. INTRODUCTION Defendant Technicolor Entertainment Services, Inc. (Technicolor) appeals from an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) as to causes of action for negligent retention and supervision and for assault brought by plaintiff Eugene Duffy and from the subsequently entered judgment for Duffy. After the trial as to liability, the jury found by special verdict that Duffy's injury was not caused or contributed to by events which arose out of or occurred within the course and scope of his employment with Technicolor; that Technicolor negligently retained and/or supervised Streng; that Technicolor's negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to Duffy; that Streng's conduct occurred after the conduct of Technicolor; that a reasonable person would not consider Streng's conduct as a highly unusual or an extraordinary response to the situation; that Streng committed one or more acts of willful physical aggression before Duffy left work at Technicolor on August 18, 2004; that Duffy had reasonable fear of bodily harm caused by Streng's conduct; that Duffy did not consent to Streng's conduct; that Technicolor later learned of Streng's conduct toward Duffy which occurred before Duffy left work on August 18, 2004; and that after learning of Streng's conduct directed at Duffy and which occurred before Duffy left work at Technicolor on August 18, 2004, Technicolor ratified Streng's conduct. Duffy then said that as he walked away, Streng told Duffy he had better be careful because Streng knew where Duffy lived.
Note:	Exclusive remedy does not apply to an employer that failed to protect a supervisor from an off-premises assault by a workplace bully.
Citation:	B196126
WCC Citation:	WCC 34862009 CA

Case Name:	DuFour v. WCAB		08/09/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT RACHAEL DUFOUR et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and CITY OF MODESTO, Respondents. BACKGROUND Modesto Police Officer Michael DuFour (DuFour) passed away in his home on December 13, 2003, after having experienced two days of flu-like symptoms. Referring to DuFour's autopsy reports, the WCJ found insufficient evidence that DuFour was infected with a blood-borne infectious disease. The WCAB found the suggestion DuFour died of a blood-borne infectious disease "speculation, not evidence" and noted Petitioner repeatedly mischaracterized the burden of proof by insisting the statutory presumption applies any time a police officer becomes ill from an unknown source. Dr. Blau's opinion here is not based on a medical finding that DuFour died from a blood-borne infectious disease.
Note:	[Unpublished] The WCAB properly declined to presume [decedent's] death arose out of and in the course of his employment.
Citation:	F052954
WCC Citation:	WCC 32472007 CA

Case Name:	Dufresne v. City of Hayward		03/25/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE No. A116737 MARGARET DUFRESNE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY OF HAYWARD, Defendant and Appellant. Ct. No. 2002-067063) Defendant City of Hayward (the city) appeals from a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff Margaret Dufresne, a former building inspector for the city, on her complaint for sexual harassment. The city also argues that the court erred in admitting evidence that the city accepted liability in workers' compensation proceedings arising out of the same alleged harassment. Hulse continued to assign her more work than the other inspectors until she stopped working for the city in 2001. Had the city wished to settle plaintiff's workers' compensation claim and at the same time avoid making such an admission, the city could have drafted such an agreement.
Note:	[Unpublished] The Superior Court did not err by admitting a plaintiff's evidence of her workers' compensation claim for psychiatric injury that allegedly resulted from years of sexual harassment.
Citation:	A116737
WCC Citation:	WCC 35072009 CA

Case Name:	Duncan v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.		12/31/1969
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115.   IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE .             DENISE MICHELLE DUNCAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, .             v. .             WAL-MART STORES, INC. , Defendant; .             HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO. , Claimant and Appellant. .             G054220 .             (Super. .             England Ponticello & St. Clair, Barry W. Ponticello, Renee C. St. Clair and Kristina M. Pfeifer for Claimant and Appellant. .           Respondent Denise Michelle Duncan sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart) for personal injuries she sustained at one of Wal-Mart’s stores while acting within the course and scope of her employment with Acosta, Inc. (Acosta). .           Hartford filed a notice and application for a lien on the judgment based on the workers’ compensation benefits it paid Duncan.
Note:	Outlines why insurance companies have the right to recoup their workers’ compensation expenses from an applicant's third-party award before the worker can touch the money, and why judges can’t make any deductions from the recoupment other than attorney’s fees.
Citation:	G054220
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 30-2014-00735595

Case Name:	Duncan v. Walmart Stores (Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.)		12/31/1969
Summary:	Filed 11/14/17; Certified for Publication 12/13/17 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT  DIVISION THREE .             DENISE MICHELLE DUNCAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, .             v. .             WAL-MART STORES, INC. , Defendant; HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO. , Claimant and Appellant. .             G054220 .             (Super. .             England Ponticello & St. Clair, Barry W. Ponticello, Renee C. St. Clair and Kristina M. Pfeifer for Claimant and Appellant. .           Respondent Denise Michelle Duncan sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart) for personal injuries she sustained at one of Wal-Mart’s stores while acting within the course and scope of her employment with Acosta, Inc. (Acosta). Filed 12/13/17  CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT  DIVISION THREE  .           DENISE MICHELLE DUNCAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, .           v. .           WAL-MART STORES, INC. , Defendant; HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO. , Claimant and Appellant.
Note:	An insurance carrier has the right to reimbursement of the benefits it paid to an injured worker from her recovery from a third party.
Citation:	G054220
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. 30-2014-00735595

Case Name:	Duncan v. WCAB		08/26/2008
Summary:	Concluding that a sanction against the UEBTF for bad faith action is not prohibited by section 3716. 2, the WCJ ordered the UEBTF to pay a sanction of $100 to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Accordingly, the WCAB held: "When a sanction is warranted under section 5813 and Rule 10561 [Cal. However, appellate review of WCAB decisions is limited to "final" orders that determine a substantial right or liability of a party. Therefore, Solorio has misused, and the WCJ and the WCAB have misapplied, section 5813 for that purpose. DISPOSITION The WCAB decision is annulled, and the cause is remanded to the WCAB for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Note:	A sanction is not a workers' compensation 'benefit' within the meaning of section 3716.2, which limits the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund's (UEBTF) liability 'only' to 'benefits' that would be paid by an employer properly insured for worker's compensation.
Citation:	C056727
WCC Citation:	WCC 34152008 CA

Case Name:	Duncan v. WCAB (X.S.)		11/25/2009
Summary:	After the SIBTF appealed to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), the WCAB issued its OPINION AND DECISION. *fn4 Appellate Review All judicial powers under the workers' compensation system are vested in the WCAB, subject only to the review by the appellate courts of this state. )*fn5 WCJs hear and decide compensation claims as trial judges, and the WCAB functions as an appellate body. The WCAB has extensive expertise in interpreting and applying the workers' compensation scheme. Accordingly, the Decision of the Worker's Compensation Appeals Board is annulled and the case is remanded to the WCAB for further proceedings.
Note:	The cost of living adjustments pursuant to Labor Code section 4659, subdivision (c), for life pensions and total permanent disability indemnity, are added to those payments, per the words of the statute, starting January 1, 2004, and every January 1 thereafter.
Citation:	H034040
WCC Citation:	WCC 35832009 CA

Case Name:	Duthie v. WCAB, McDonnell Douglas Co.		11/27/1978
Summary:	JOHN H. DUTHIE, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, McDONNELL DOUGLAS COMPANY et al. , Respondents. OPINION TAMURA, Acting P. J. Petitioner filed a workers' compensation claim for a heart disability suffered while in the employment of McDonnell Douglas Company. He had been employed as an administrator by McDonnell Douglas for nine years, and had just received a notice of imminent layoff. His opinion was that petitioner's condition stemmed from aggravation of his hypertension by the stress and harassment of his job. Prior to the nine-year span of present employment with McDonnell Douglas, petitioner had worked for McDonnell Douglas' predecessor Douglas Aircraft from 1962 to 1963, when he was laid off because of cancellation of a missile project.
Note:	Preexisting disability must occur at a definite, ascertainable time prior to industrial injury becoming P&S for legal apportionment.
Citation:	86 CA 3d 721, 43 CCC 1214
WCC Citation:	WCC 28441978 CA

Case Name:	Dutra v. Mercy Medical Center Mt. Shasta		09/26/2012
Summary:	MICHELLE DUTRA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MERCY MEDICAL CENTER MT. Plaintiff Michelle Dutra sued her former employer, defendant Mercy Medical Center Mt. Shasta (Mercy), for defamation and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Plaintiff alleged Mercy committed libel per se by communicating to her and others in a private meeting its grounds for terminating her employment. Mercy informed plaintiff the grounds for her termination in a confidential meeting attended by plaintiff, a union steward, and Mercy supervisors.
Note:	Workers' compensation exclusivity barred a hospital housekeeper from suing her former employer in tort for allegedly terminating her in retaliation for her pursuit of benefits for an industrial injury.
Citation:	C067169
WCC Citation:	WCC 39352012 CA

Case Name:	Dykes v. WCAB		11/04/2008
Summary:	Perplexed by the WCAB's actions, Dykes asks whether the WCAB exceeded its powers by reopening and reconsidering his award which already had been exhaustively litigated and affirmed through the appellate process. "Gallo timely petitioned the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) for reconsideration, contending that the Labor Code mandated subtracting the percentage, not dollar amount, of the prior award from Dyke's disability award. Dykes argues that more than a simple change in the law is required to trigger good cause to reopen a WCAB decision. Dykes believes the WCAB was instead required to find our prior decision presented "exceptional circumstances of hardship and injustice. "Dykes lastly contends that permitting the WCAB to reopen a disability award based on a change in the law will cast doubt on all final WCAB awards and create "a recipe for mass relitigation," particularly when future disability tables are revised.
Note:	[Unpublished] The Supreme Court's decision in Brodie constituted good cause to reopen Dykes's prior disability award, even after it had been affirmed by this court and denied review by the Supreme Court.
Citation:	F055891
WCC Citation:	WCC 34592008 CA