Case Name:	Henry v. WCAB		12/18/1998
Summary:	JENNIFER HENRY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, MAMMOTH MOUNTAIN SKI AREA et al. , Respondents. Jennifer Lee Henry (Henry) injured her back while employed as a seasonal ski instructor at Mammoth Mountain Ski Area (Mammoth Mountain). Henry rejected the offer and petitioned for additional relief through the workers' compensation and judicial systems. Henry contended that the offer does not comply with section 4644, subdivision (a)(6)(B) which requires that the employer offer alternative work in a regular position lasting at least 12 months. Henry requested reconsideration by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) which also upheld the consultant's decision.
Note:	Seasonal employee is entitled to only 12 months of alternate seasonal work, not to 12 months of continuous work.
Citation:	68 Cal.App.4th 981, 63 CCC 1481
WCC Citation:	WCC 27901998 CA

Case Name:	Henstorf v. State Compensation Ins. Fund		09/04/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE JAN E. HENSTORF et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant and Respondent. In 2004, State Fund issued 51 percent of the workers' compensation insurance written in California. In early 2005, State Fund established a medical provider network of physicians to provide care to the worker's compensation patients of State Fund's insureds. State Fund now issues 36 percent of the worker's compensation insurance written in California. Respondent State Compensation Insurance Fund is awarded its costs on appeal.
Note:	[Unpublished] State Fund's conduct in combining with Blue Cross to form an efficient bargaining unit is expressly exempt from antitrust and unfair competition laws under Business and Professions Code section 16720, Health and Safety Code section 1342.6, and Insurance Code section 10133.6.
Citation:	B210943
WCC Citation:	WCC 35622009 CA

Case Name:	Herek v. Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association		10/30/2017
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115(a).   IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO .             MICHAEL HEREK, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             LOS ANGELES COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Respondent. .             B275805 .             (Los Angeles County Super. .             Petitioner Michael Herek (petitioner) applied for a disability retirement from the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (Department), and his application was denied. Application for Disability Retirement .           In February 2008, petitioner filed an application with respondent Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association’s Board of Retirement (the Board) for a disability retirement due to “[c]ardiovascular, high blood pressure, gastrointestinal, [and] back” injuries. .           ______________________, J. HOFFSTADT .           We concur: .           _________________________, Acting P. J. ASHMANN-GERST .           _________________________, J. CHAVEZ
Note:	A California appellate court upheld the denial of a former law enforcement officer’s claim for disability retirement benefits, finding substantial evidence supported a determination that he was not permanently incapacitated from duty.
Citation:	B275805
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS155097

Case Name:	Heritage Residential Care v. Division of Labor Standards Enforcement		01/26/2011
Summary:	HERITAGE RESIDENTIAL CARE, INC. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT et al. Division of Labor Standards, Department of Industrial Relations, Legal Section, Anne Hipshman, Attorney for Respondent. BACKGROUND The parties to this appeal are Heritage Residential Care, Inc. (appellant) and the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (respondent, sometimes referred to herein as DLSE or Labor Commissioner). Mandamus Petition In February 2009, appellant filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus in Santa Clara County Superior Court. Civil Penalties for Violation "When proven, Labor Code violations give rise to civil penalties. "
Note:	A misclassification statute's use of the word 'inadvertent' did not excuse a nursing home's $72,000 fine for its inadvertent misclassification of 16 health care workers.
Citation:	H034994
WCC Citation:	WCC 37072011 CA

Case Name:	Hernandez v. DeGroot & Sons		11/28/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ENRIQUE HERNANDEZ et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. C. DEGROOT & SONS, Defendant and Appellant. Ct. No. CV017461) ENRIQUE HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. C. DEGROOT & SONS, Defendant and Respondent. He and his wife Maria sued his employer's landlord, C. DeGroot & Sons, a general partnership (the Landlord). FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Landlord, a general partnership of Jerry DeGroot (DeGroot) and his three brothers, owned a cheese making facility on 20 acres or so in Manteca. "If you decide, one, that C. DeGroot & Sons [(the Landlord)] violated this law and, two, that the violation was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm, then you must find .
Note:	[Unpublished] Where there is a tenable claim of concurrent negligence, the consideration that an injured worker has workers' compensation coverage is no bar to recovery from the concurrent tortfeasor.
Citation:	C051254
WCC Citation:	WCC 32812007 CA

Case Name:	Hernandez v. Gray Lift, Inc.		05/31/2012
Summary:	HERNANDEZ v. GRAY LIFT, INC. JOSE HERNANDEZ, JR. , et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. GRAY LIFT, INC. et al. , Defendants and Respondents. In the FAC, plaintiffs Jose Hernandez, Jr. , Yunalesca Hernandez, and Noemi Hernandez sought damages under the wrongful death statute against defendants Gray Lift and Wells based upon the alleged negligent driving of Wells while in the scope of Wells's employment with Gray Lift, Inc. , resulting in the fatal accident that caused decedent's death. Plaintiffs further admit that CRS is a dba of Gray Lift, Inc. , yet they attempt to sue Gray Lift, Inc. as a separate entity. That is, defendants sought to prove that CRS was one and the same entity as Gray Lift, Inc. and therefore Gray Lift Inc. was decedent's employer. Gray Lift, Inc. , provided all tools used by Plaintiffs' decedent in his work for Gray Lift, Inc. doing business as [CRS].
Note:	A California corporation could assert workers' compensation exclusivity as an affirmative defense to a wrongful death claim filed by the family of a laborer who was killed while working for it, pursuant to a contract under the corporation's fictitious business name.
Citation:	F061759
WCC Citation:	WCC 39042012 CA

Case Name:	Hernandez v. Henkel Loctite Corporation		03/22/2018
Summary:	WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA .             PEDRO HERNANDEZ, Applicant, .             v. .             HENKEL LOCTITE CORPORATION; ZURICH AMERICAN INS. .             Based on our review of the relevant statutes and case law, we hold that: .           1. .           (C) Has provided treatment authorized by the employer or claims administrator under Section 4610. .           The WCJ issued her Findings of Fact and Opinion on Decision on December 29, 2017, and found, in pertinent part: .           2. .           WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD (EN BANC) .           /s/Katherine A. Zalewski____________________ KATHERINE A. ZALEWSKI, Chairwoman .           /s/ Deidra E. Lowe_________________________ DEIDRA E. LOWE, Commissioner .           /s/ Marguerite Sweeney_____________________ MARGUERITE SWEENEY, Commissioner .           /s/ José H. Razo ____________________ JOSÉ H. RAZO, Commissioner .           DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA .           03/22/2018 En banc decisions of the Appeals Board are binding precedent on all Appeals Board panels and WCJs.
Note:
Citation:	ADJ6726149
WCC Citation:	ADJ6726149

Case Name:	Hernandez v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co.		01/24/2017
Summary:	.             Plaintiff and appellant Yvonne Hernandez worked for defendant and respondent Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T California (Pacific Bell). .           In the years Hernandez was ineligible for leave under the FMLA/CFRA, Pacific Bell granted CIL to her. B. Pacific Bell moves for summary judgment .           Pacific Bell moved for summary judgment or, alternatively, summary adjudication. .           Hernandez submitted “me too” evidence (declarations from other fired Pacific Bell employees and their civil complaints) showing that Pacific Bell fired other disabled employees. D. Pacific Bell’s reply  .           In reply, Pacific Bell submitted additional deposition testimony from Ross and from Williams showing, for example, that Pacific Bell considered leave given to accommodate a disability as protected.
Note:
Citation:	B260109
WCC Citation:	Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC507337

Case Name:	Hernandez v. Target Corp.		02/19/2008
Summary:	INTRODUCTION While working for defendant and respondent Target Corporation (Target), plaintiff and appellant Martha Hernandez (plaintiff) injured her knee. *fn6 On or about March 12, 2004, plaintiff submitted to Target a doctor's note indicating that she could only work sitting. Plaintiff told several Target employees about her knee pain, including the "secretary," but was told to continue working in her Go-Backs position. Moreover, Garcia admitted that Target had a cashier who performed the essential job functions of that position in a wheelchair. As noted above, plaintiff's DFEH charge against Target alleged that Target illegally discriminated against her on May 11, 2004, when it fired her because of her disability.
Note:	[Unpublished] The trial court did not err in making the evidentiary rulings challenged by plaintiff, and plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies in connection with certain of her claims under the FEHA.
Citation:	B195625
WCC Citation:	WCC 33192008 CA

Case Name:	Herrera v. CU Cooperative Systems		01/29/2013
Summary:	HERRERA v. CU COOPERATIVE SYSTEMS, INC. ROXANNE HERRERA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CU COOPERATIVE SYSTEMS, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff and appellant, Roxanne Herrera, sued her former employer, defendant and respondent, CU Cooperative Systems, Inc. (CO-OP), alleging three violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12940 et seq. Herrera Tells Freer She is Pregnant On July 15, 2008, Herrera told Freer she was pregnant. Herrera showed Freer a copy of her meal plan and asked him for permission to eat at her desk. On November 4, 2008, while Herrera was still on PDL, Monise contacted Herrera by telephone and terminated her effective November 5, 2008.
Note:	An employer defeated a pregnancy discrimination suit by showing that it had actually fired the plaintiff because she had coached a coworker on how to skip work
Citation:	E052869
WCC Citation:	WCC 39802013 CA