Case Name:	McCarty v. State of California Department of Transportation.		07/10/2008
Summary:	Filed 7/10/08 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO STEPHEN McCARTY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant and Appellant. In Hooker, as here, the defendant was the State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans) -- a public entity. McCarty was left a near-quadriplegic, with complete paralysis from the chest down and weakness in his arms and hands. Finally, it apportioned fault 31 percent to Caltrans, 42 percent to FCI, zero percent to Edison, and 27 percent to McCarty. In opposition, counsel for McCarty testified that, upon receiving the motion, they "undertook to identify various witnesses that provided testimony to support the verdict.
Note:	A public entity can be held liable under the retained control doctrine, provided all the other prerequisites of public entity liability under Government Code section 815.4 are also present.
Citation:	E040627
WCC Citation:	WCC 33962008 CA

Case Name:	McCarty v. WCAB		10/30/1974
Summary:	McCarty was an employee of Apartment Plumbers, Inc. , a corporation owned and managed by Alan McGowan and Robert Schlossberg. Employees stored beer in the refrigerator at the office; McCarty, who preferred bourbon, kept a half pint of Jack Daniels on a shelf. Schlossberg, one of the owner-managers, testified that he, McCarty, and a few other employees remained on the premises talking, drinking, and playing poker. Later in the evening McCarty drank from the bottle, chased it with vodka (which he thought was water) and became ill. As we have noted, while driving home, McCarty lost his life when he collided with a railroad signal pole.
Note:	Intoxication not a defense where employer permits consumption of alcohol.
Citation:	12 Cal.3d 677, 33 CCC 712
WCC Citation:	WCC 3411974 CA

Case Name:	McClune v. WCAB		04/02/1998
Summary:	OPINION SONENSHINE, J. - Steve McClune contests the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's (the WCAB) denial of his petition for reconsideration of his workers' compensation claim. McClune's expert witness testified the injury was caused by cumulative and repetitive trauma while McClune was employed by AMS. He explained McClune had no symptoms prior to his AMS employment and passed a pre-employment physical. He supported his testimony with McClune's medical records indicating McClune reported severe left hip degenerative arthritis pain in 1993. The WCAB denied the petition for reconsideration, holding McClune failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence his injury was industrial in nature.
Note:	WCJ and WCAB can order taking new evidence when record lacks substantial evidence to find industrial causation, such duty imposed by due process.
Citation:	62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 63 CCC 261
WCC Citation:	WCC 26811998 CA

Case Name:	McClure v. Dept of Corrections and Rehabilitation		05/18/2011
Summary:	McCLURE v. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION ELIZABETH McCLURE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Defendant and Appellant. In this sexual harassment action, defendant California's Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the Department) (formerly California Department of Corrections) has found itself on the wrong side of a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff Elizabeth McClure. (Bradley v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 1612, 1623 (Bradley). )On September 13, 2002, Snoddy informed McClure that she (Snoddy) would no longer be assigning McClure shifts at CCC. [¶] [McClure] was subsequently terminated by the prison [staff] notifying [Staffing]" that "they no longer wanted [McClure]. "
Note:	An employee of a temporary staffing firm assigned to work at the California Department of Corrections was a special employee of the department under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, the 3rd District Court of Appeals ruled in affirming a jury award in a sexual-harassment lawsuit.
Citation:	C062601, C063431
WCC Citation:	WCC 37662011 CA

Case Name:	McCormick v. San Pedro Bait Co.		12/15/2009
Summary:	Plaintiff and appellant Jack McCormick filed a complaint for damages against defendant and respondent San Pedro Bait Company (San Pedro) alleging negligence. He did not ask anyone from San Pedro to provide him with tools, equipment, or gear, and San Pedro did not do so. McCormick asserted that San Pedro's negligent failure to cover or barricade deck openings affirmatively contributed to his accident and that San Pedro supplied McCormick with an unsafe and defective bait barge. The court sustained objections to Stoller's statements that he had reviewed relevant safety standards, San Pedro rendered the barge unsafe for McCormick, the unsafe conditions caused the accident, and San Pedro violated safety regulations. Because San Pedro did not affirmatively contribute to McCormick's injuries, the safety regulations do not expand San Pedro's duty to McCormick.
Note:	The Privette doctrine barred an injured worker's negligence suit against the owner of a bait barge.
Citation:	B215111
WCC Citation:	WCC 35862009 CA

Case Name:	McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Co. v. WCAB		06/09/1993
Summary:	McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Company, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California, Xerox Corporation, et al. , Respondents. On October 27, 1988, applicant, McDonnell Douglas, and Industrial Indemnity entered into a compromise and release in which they settled all issues in applicant's case against McDonnell Douglas, including the right to vocational rehabilitation, for the gross amount of $ 10,000. In their answer to Xerox's petition for reconsideration, McDonnell Douglas and its insurer asserted that the WCJ reasonably relied on Dr. Ravin's October 14, 1986 report in support of his order approving the McDonnell Douglas compromise and release and his finding that there was a serious, bona fide dispute as to whether any industrial injury occurred during the McDonnell Douglas employment, because in that report Dr. Ravin discussed applicant's employment by McDonnell Douglas and that report was closest in time to the McDonnell Douglas employment. He granted that petition, ordering McDonnell Douglas to pay Xerox $ 4,000 as McDonnell Douglas's share of Xerox's settlement of vocational rehabilitation temporary disability indemnity. )II McDonnell Douglas further contends that the order approving McDonnell Douglas's compromise and release precludes an order requiring contribution by McDonnell Douglas to Xerox.
Note:	Settling employer not liable for contribution to another employer absent evidence that settlement was in bad faith.
Citation:	58 CCC 305
WCC Citation:	WCC 26031993 CA

Case Name:	McDuffie v. LA Co. Metropolitan Transit Authority		02/25/2002
Summary:	Finally, if none of these options succeeds or is possible, the WCJ or the Board may then appoint a medical examiner. We agree, however, with defendant's first contention as to further development of the medical record. BACKGROUND Applicant was hired by defendant as a bus operator on March 4, 1976, and worked in that capacity until his retirement on June 30,1999. On September 22,1999, he filed a claim for cumulative injury to both knees and in the form of hypertension. Applicant submitted the reports of Dr. Sobol for the injury to his knees and that of Dr. Burstein for his hypertension.
Note:	Proper procedure for supplementing medical record at trial.
Citation:	67 CCC 138
WCC Citation:	WCC 28402002 CA

Case Name:	McGee Street Productions vs. WCAB		05/12/2003
Summary:	The special employer was the production company, McGee Street Productions (McGee Street). On April 19, 2001, more than one year after Peterson's death, an amended petition naming both McGee Street and Entertainment was served on McGee Street. An order joining McGee Street Productions issued on December 10, 2001. McGee Street also contended that Entertainment not McGee Street was the responsible party. Not until April 16, 2002, in its opposition to joinder did McGee Street, for the first time, admit Entertainment was the general employer and McGee Street was the special employer.
Note:	Statute of limitations for serious & willful claims strictly construed.
Citation:	108 Cal.App.4th 707
WCC Citation:	WCC 29342003 CA

Case Name:	McKinnon v. Otis Elevator Company		04/18/2007
Summary:	Ct. No. 04AS02043) DEBORAH MCKINNON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. Landmark Healthcare's workers' compensation insurer, Everest National Insurance Company, and its claims administrator, American Commercial Claims Administrators (collectively, Employer), paid and became obligated to pay workers' compensation benefits to Employee, and, on May 23, 2003, filed a negligence-based subrogation complaint against Otis Elevator Company (Otis) to recoup these benefits. "At the current time ACCA is in the process of settling its case against Otis Elevator Company for the workers' compensation benefits paid on your behalf. Consequently, the settlement and dismissal of Employer's subrogation lawsuit against Otis does not bar Employee's lawsuit against Otis. As to Employee's lawsuit against Otis, Employee will not be allowed double recovery and Otis will not be subjected to double liability.
Note:	When an employer fails to adequately notify its employee of its subrogation lawsuit and proposed settlement involving the alleged third-party tortfeasor and fails to obtain the employee's consent to the settlement of that suit, and when the settling alleged third-party tortfeasor, prior to settlement, was or reasonably should have been aware of the possibility of the employee's claim for damages against the tortfeasor, the alleged tortfeasor cannot use the mere settlement and dismissal of the employer's subrogation action to bar the employee from maintaining her own action for damages against the alleged tortfeasor.
Citation:	149 Cal. App. 4th 1125
WCC Citation:	WCC 32162007 CA

Case Name:	McNally v. Holzman		04/18/2011
Summary:	McNALLY v. HOLZMAN PATRICIA A. McNALLY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DAVID T. HOLZMAN et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Respondents David T. Holzman and the law firm Hourigan, Holzman & Sprague negotiated a settlement which included a $395,000 special needs trust. Respondents signed the guardian ad litem petition on appellant's behalf, naming appellant's brother as guardian ad litem and trustee. We have attached a copy of the guardian ad litem petition which is a WCAB preprinted form. It states: "The minor(s)/incompetent(s) require a Guardian ad Litem and Trustee to prosecute the claim and to receive .
Note:	An applicant may not do an end run around the one-year statute of limitations by morphing her malpractice suit against her former attorneys into a defamation suit.
Citation:	B225645
WCC Citation:	WCC 37472011 CA