Case Name:	H.B. Fuller Co., etc. v. WCAB		09/17/1998
Summary:	H. B. Fuller Company, American Motorists Insurance Company, Petitioners v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Eric Weaver, Respondents. However, the parties disputed whether Applicant had made a good faith demand for vocational rehabilitation services. Defendants dispute this as not being a good faith request because, only a few days earlier, Applicant had indicated that he wanted voc. The WCJ recommended that the WCAB deny reconsideration, stating: 'In analyzing the testimony, it appeared that very shortly after being terminated with H. B. Fuller, Applicant was faced with a decision of whether he should pursue vocational rehabilitation. Applicant's main focus was eventually obtaining another position with H. B. Fuller because he wanted to continue his employment there.
Note:	Employer must clarify applicant's willingness to participate in rehab. if request conflicts with statements made by applicant; entitlement to maintenance allowance begins when employer receives application.
Citation:	63 CCC 1287
WCC Citation:	WCC 27961998 CA

Case Name:	Hall v. Curran		05/11/2011
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. Respondent Scott Hall (Hall) hired appellant Martin Gerard Curran*fn1 (Curran) to undertake a remodeling project. After disputes arose about workmanship and payment, Curran brought an action against Hall to foreclose on a mechanic's lien. BACKGROUND While only Hall and Curran are parties to this appeal, the underlying action was filed by Coastside Lumber Supply, Inc. (Coastside). Curran filed its own mechanic's lien for $58,109, and in March 2007, filed a cross-complaint against Hall to foreclose on the lien. Hall then dismissed his remaining cause of action against Curran, and the court ordered judgment entered against Curran for $102,740--which represented the entire amount he had been paid for the remodeling project, minus the amount Hall received in settlement from Curran's bonding company, plus $240 in costs.
Note:	A homeowner was able to recoup $102,740 he had paid to a construction firm after discovering that the firm had failed to obtain workers' compensation insurance for some of its workers.
Citation:	A127542
WCC Citation:	WCC 37632011 CA

Case Name:	Hall v. Goodwill Industries of Southern California		03/16/2011
Summary:	MICHAEL HALL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff and Appellant Michael Hall filed suit against Goodwill Industries of Southern California (Goodwill) alleging a retaliation claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, 12900 et seq. According to Hall, after Goodwill terminated his employment he was unable to find new work. On December 30, 2005, Hall filed a civil complaint against Goodwill for retaliation in violation of FEHA and wrongful termination. Hall filed a motion for reconsideration but the trial court entered judgment in the case before the motion was heard.
Note:	A worker's Fair Employment and Housing Act suit was untimely because his attorney filed his complaint more than a year after the state issued his right-to-sue notice, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled in a published decision.
Citation:	B215860
WCC Citation:	WCC 37272011 CA

Case Name:	Halliburton v. Remington College-Denver Campus, Inc.		04/28/2008
Summary:	According to Halliburton, Cisneros had previously "falsely" stated that Halliburton was sexually harassing her. Halliburton presented deposition testimony from other Halliburton employees including Katrina Shdeed, Manuel Gallegos and Terrence Peterson. Gallegos heard Halliburton complaining about these matters several months before his termination, and he believed Halliburton complained too much and there was no other reason he could think of as to why Halliburton would be fired. Remington thereafter moved for clarification, correction and/or reconsideration of the court's March 2006 order, arguing Remington was not named as a party to Halliburton's defamation cause of action. Background In March 2005, Halliburton served discovery on Remington including special and form interrogatories and a request for production of documents.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because causes of action based on defamation are not barred by the exclusive remedy provision, summary judgement was improper in response to claimant's wrongful discharge and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims.
Citation:	D049223
WCC Citation:	WCC 33502008 CA

Case Name:	Halverson v. Orange County Employees Retirement System		01/27/2011
Summary:	JANET R. HALVERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Defendant and Respondent. INTRODUCTION The Orange County Employees Retirement System (OCERS) adopted a referee's recommendation made following an administrative hearing and denied the application of Janet R. Halverson for service-connected and nonservice-connected disability retirement. Halverson began working for the County of Orange in September 1980. Dr. Savarirayan found Halverson to be anxious and depressed, prescribed Paxil, and placed Halverson on disability for one month. (Curtis v. Board of Retirement (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 293, 297, quoting Mansperger v. Public Employees' Retirement System (1970) 6 Cal. App. 3d 873, 876. )
Note:	Substantial evidence that a public guardian was able to return to work supported the Orange County Employees' Retirement System's denial of her request for disability-related retirement benefits.
Citation:	G042276
WCC Citation:	WCC 37082011 CA

Case Name:	Hamilton v. WCAB		05/04/1979
Summary:	In 1975, two years after his retirement, Hamilton entered Kaiser hospital for a routine examination. Instead he said 'lay off the booze,' and recommended a 'dry-out clinic' to which Hamilton went for three or four days. But Hamilton did not stop drinking, at least until about a year after he had filed his claim for workers' compensation. 'Review of records: I reviewed all of the records that were sent to me regarding Mr. Hamilton. These records confirm the fact that Mr. Hamilton did indeed begin to have intermittent hypertension since the middle of the 1960's.
Note:	Presumption must be supported by evidence of causal connection between employment and injury.
Citation:	93 Cal.App.3d 587, 44 CCC 520
WCC Citation:	WCC 4141979 CA

Case Name:	Hamilton vs. Lockheed Corp.		04/30/2001
Summary:	Applicant sustained admitted cumulative industrial injury to the psyche from December 1990 through September 30, 1992. After applicant's evaluation by an A m , the matter was submitted for decision "on the record' at the hearing of July 25, 2000. Filed behind the minutes is a large collection of documents with numbered tabs, which include medical reports and deposition transcripts. There is no way to ascertain which, if any of them, were admitted into evidence. In reliance upon same the Court is of the opinion that applicant is totally (100%) disabled due to her employment at Lockheed Corporation from 12/90 to 9/30/92.
Note:	Minimum necessary to be in Board file for case to be submitted for decision.
Citation:	66 CCC 473
WCC Citation:	WCC 29052001 CA

Case Name:	Hamilton vs. Martinelli & Assoc.		07/23/2003
Summary:	BARBARA ANN HAMILTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MARTINELLI & ASSOCIATES et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Introduction Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendants Ronald Martinelli (Martinelli) and Martinelli & Associates Justice Consultants, Inc. (Martinelli & Associates) (collectively defendants), on plaintiff's complaint for personal injuries based on negligence and intentional tort. Defendant Martinelli instructed the course on behalf of Martinelli & Associates. Martinelli and one of his assistants instructed the course through Martinelli & Associates, under contract with the Department. She said Martinelli "harbored bitter feelings against [her] based on a prior dispute" and displayed "reckless and vindictive" indifference to her safety.
Note:	No duty owed to a peace officer who is engaged in training to meet an emergency situation.
Citation:	110 Cal.App.4th 1012
WCC Citation:	WCC 29512003 CA

Case Name:	Hamp v. Harrison Patterson O'Connor & Kinkead, LLP		12/18/2012
Summary:	HAMP v. HARRISON PATTERSON O'CONNOR & KINKEAD, LLP RICHARD HAMP, SR. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. HARRISON PATTERSON O'CONNOR & KINKEAD, LLP et al. , Defendants and Respondents. INTRODUCTION Richard Hamp, Sr. , (Hamp) sued Harrison Patterson O'Connor & Kinkead, LLP, its successor Harrison Patterson & O'Connor, LLP, and Harry W. Harrison (collectively Harrison) for alleged deficiencies in Harrison's representation of Hamp in an employment action. Hamp subsequently hired Harrison to represent him in an employment action against Hanson. After a failed settlement attempt, Harrison withdrew from representing Hamp in May 2010 and Hamp obtained new counsel. Peregrine Funding, Inc. v. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP (2005) 133 Cal. App. 4th 658, upon which Harrison relies, is distinguishable.
Note:	The 4th District Court of Appeal revived an injured worker's malpractice claim against his former attorney, ruling that the action was not subject to dismissal as a strategic lawsuit against public participation.
Citation:	D061276
WCC Citation:	WCC 39582012 CA

Case Name:	Hanford Ready Mix, Inc. v. Dominguez		12/27/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) HANFORD READY MIX, INC. , Cross-complainant and Appellant, v. DANIEL DOMINGUEZ, Cross-defendant and Respondent. Gray's decedents filed a wrongful death and negligence action against Daniel Dominguez, Hanford Ready Mix, Inc. (Hanford), and Gray's employer, L. L. & W. Supply, Inc. , doing business as Cen-Cal Wallboard (Cen-Cal). Hanford filed a cross-complaint for indemnity against Cen-Cal and Dominguez, alleging their negligence caused or contributed to the accident. Hanford contends there are triable issues of fact concerning whether Dominguez and/or his agents breached a duty of care to Gray and caused the accident. Hanford cross-complained against Cen-Cal and Dominguez, alleging that Gray's death was caused in whole or in part by cross-defendants.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because the evidence failed to show negligence on the part of Defendant, summary judgement was warranted and the issue of whether this action was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the workers' compensation law is not addressed.
Citation:	C052180
WCC Citation:	WCC 32932007 CA