Case Name:	LeFiell Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Court of LA County		08/20/2012
Summary:	LeFIELL MANUFACTURING CO. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY LeFIELL MANUFACTURING CO. , Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; O'NEIL WATROUS et al. , Real Parties in Interest. The Court of Appeal nonetheless concluded the spouse's loss of consortium claim as pleaded in the civil action remained viable. Consequently, under settled principles of workers' compensation law, the exclusivity rule bars a dependent spouse's claim for loss of consortium. The trial court overruled employer's demurrer to employee's causes of action for negligence and products liability. That aspect of the Court of Appeal's judgment is not contested, and as such, shall be affirmed.
Note:	The California Supreme Court on Monday overturned a published appellate court decision allowing the wife of an injured worker to proceed with a loss-of-consortium claim against her husband's employer based on Labor Code Section 4558's exception to workers' compensation exclusivity.
Citation:	S192759
WCC Citation:	WCC 39212012 CA

Case Name:	LeFiell Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Ct of LA (Watrous et al.)		03/30/2011
Summary:	LeFiell also "failed to properly provide guarding so as to prevent material from flying up into or out of the machine . The form pleading seeks to recover for strict liability, negligence, and breach of implied and express written and oral warranties. LeFiell also contended Watrous's spouse lacked standing to pursue any cause of action arising from the power press injury (first, second, and fourth causes of action). Moreover, LeFiell argued her loss of consortium claim for damages (third cause of action) was barred by the exclusive remedy rule (§ 3600 et seq. )(Jones v. Keppeler (1991) 228 Cal. App. 3d 705, 709; see also Flowmaster, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 16 Cal. App. 4th 1019, 1029. )
Note:	The California 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled that an applicant may not sue his employer for products liability and general negligence under the Labor Code 4558's exception to exclusive remedy, but allowed his wife to file a loss-of-consortium claim because her claim falls outside the exclusive remedy of workers' compensation.
Citation:	B226240
WCC Citation:	WCC 37402011 CA

Case Name:	Legrone v. Mogenson		06/28/2011
Summary:	LEGRONE v. MOGENSON GENEVA LEGRONE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THOMAS MOGENSON et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Plaintiff, Geneva Legrone, injured her ankle during a work-related activity and was seen by Thomas Mogensen, M. D. (Mogensen), at Central Occupational Medical Providers (COMP), the provider of medical care for injured workers employed by the City of Perris. A month after sustaining the injury, an MRI was finally ordered, and plaintiff had to undergo surgery to repair the injury. Mogensen recommended physical therapy and prescribed pain medication, directing plaintiff to return to work with restrictions of intermittent standing and no walking. Plaintiff was reexamined by Mogensen on March 31, 2006, and was instructed to return to work with restrictions.
Note:	A worker's medical malpractice suit against an occupational physician was untimely, because she filed it after the one-year statute of limitations expired.
Citation:	E050274
WCC Citation:	WCC 37792011 CA

Case Name:	Leinon vs. Fishermen's Grotto, Mid-Century Insurance Company		08/25/2004
Summary:	BACKGROUND Applicant claimed a cumulative trauma (CT) injury to his spine, left hip, and right knee for the period ending November 1, 1998. Defendant disputed injury from the outset by sending applicant a timely delay letter; later it timely denied the claim. Thereafter, applicant claimed that defendant failed to pay a section 4650(d) penalty when it paid the TDI required by the May 30, 2001 Findings and Award. In the decision reconsidered here, the WCJ found defendant liable for a section 4650(d) penalty on the TDI due under the May 30, 2001 Findings and Award. "(b) If the injury causes permanent disability, the first payment shall be made within 14 days after the date of last payment of temporary disability indemnity.
Note:	No 4650 penalty due if denied claim later determined compensable and benefits paid within 14 days after Award.
Citation:	68 CCC 1460 (En Banc)
WCC Citation:	WCC 30212004 CA

Case Name:	Leo's Assoc. Inc. v. DIR		07/12/2004
Summary:	LEO'S ASSOCIATES, INC. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT, Defendant and Respondent. The policy had lapsed before that date and had not been reinstated at that time. It is appellant's position, in the trial court and in this court, that because of this reinstatement, the penalties should have been set aside. Egan asked to see proof of workers' compensation insurance in force, as required by Labor Code section 3700. The court distinguished Woodline because there was "no question of retroactive or backdated coverage" in the case before it.
Note:	Penalties enforced for lack of insurance even though reinstated retroactively.
Citation:	120 Cal.App.4th 628
WCC Citation:	WCC 29982004 CA

Case Name:	Leon v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co.		10/27/2011
Summary:	Plaintiff and appellant Julia Leon began working as a union employee for Pacific Bell Telephone Company (Pacific Bell) in 2001. In September 2006, Pacific Bell provided Leon with an ergonomic evaluation that resulted in modifications to her workstation. On September 12, 2007, Leon was informed that her employment with Pacific Bell had been terminated, effective September 11, 2007. Pacific Bell filed its reply, and moved to strike Leon's late-filed supplemental opposition, to which Leon also filed opposition. *fn4 The complaint named as defendants Pacific Bell Telephone Company, AT&T Communications of California, AT&T, and AT&T Corp.
Note:	An injured worker who was temporarily laid off because she was unable to perform the essential functions of her job, but later rehired after a reasonable accommodation was found, failed to show any facts that would have supported a Fair Employment and Housing Act claim.
Citation:	H034995
WCC Citation:	WCC 38152011 CA

Case Name:	Leonel v. American Airlines, Inc.		03/04/2005
Summary:	The opinion of the court was delivered by: Fisher, Circuit Judge FOR PUBLICATION Argued and Submitted October 4, 2004 -- San Francisco, California OPINION Appellants Walber Leonel, Richard Branton and Vincent Fusco, who all have the human immunodeficiency virus ("HIV"), applied for flight attendant positions with American Airlines ("American"). Immediately after these interviews, members of the American Airlines Flight Attendant Recruitment Team extended the appellants conditional offers of employment. *fn3 After making the offers, American Airlines representatives directed the appellants to go immediately to the company's medical department for medical examinations. Because American Airlines strictly adheres to the requirements of the [ADA], I have not been informed of your particular situation. American Airlines will consider for employment any qualified individual if they can safely perform the essential functions of the job .
Note:	Employer cannot conduct medical exam until after other preliminary hiring requirements are completed.
Citation:	400 F.3d 702
WCC Citation:	WCC 30862005 CA

Case Name:	Leprino Foods v. WCAB (Barela)		04/30/2010
Summary:	LEPRINO FOODS, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JOEY BARELA, Respondents. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS OPINION THE COURT[ 1 ] Leprino Foods (Leprino) petitions this court for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Rules of Court, rule 8. 495. ) Leprino contends the WCAB erred in awarding an injured employee a higher level of permanent disability after self-procuring a medical surgery legally denied by the employer. BACKGROUND Joey Barela injured his low back on August 31, 2005, while working as a dry mixer operator for Leprino. As the WCAB found, Leprino appropriately exercised its authority to conduct a utilization review and obtain a second medical opinion, which both disagreed with Barela's treating physician.
Note:	A worker is entitled to a higher permanent disability award after undergoing an unauthorized surgery that proved successful in hindsight.
Citation:	F058809
WCC Citation:	WCC 36192010 CA

Case Name:	Leroy T. v. WCAB		08/28/1974
Summary:	LEROY T. , a Minor, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al. , Respondents In Bank. In the summer of 1969, petitioner Leroy T. was a 16-year-old court ward, a status imposed upon him apparently after he was found to have disturbed the peace. Petitioner subsequently sought workmen's compensation benefits pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 883 and Labor Code section 4455. Claiming that he was entitled to more than minimum compensation, petitioner subsequently and unsuccessfully sought reconsideration before the Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board. 2 Eighty dollars and seventy-seven cents was the maximum weekly earnings figure then prescribed by Labor Code section 4453. fn.
Note:	Juvenile court ward working in fire suppression is entitled to same benefits as county employee
Citation:	12 Cal.3d 434, 39 CCC 569
WCC Citation:	WCC 23921974 CA