Case Name:	No. Am. Rockwell Corp. v. WCAB		06/25/1970
Summary:	No. 35722 June 25, 1970 NORTH AMERICAN ROCKWELL CORPORATION, SPACE DIVISION, PETITIONER, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD AND ANDREW H. SAKSA, RESPONDENTS Kirk J. Daly and Robert S. Goldberg for Petitioner. We have reached the conclusion that the injury is compensable and the decision of the appeals board is correct. Saksa stood between the two vehicle attaching jumper cables when Kinney's [9 CalApp3d Page 157] vehicle suddenly lurched forward, pinning Saksa between the bumpers. 384, 407 P. 2d 296] [injury in collision between employee's vehicle and vehicle on highway entrance]; Pacific Indem. The clear distinction between the present case and the case of State Dept. of Institutions v. Industrial Acc.
Note:	Reasonable doubt is to be resolved in favor of employee.
Citation:	9 Cal. App. 3d 154
WCC Citation:	WCC 30591970 CA

Case Name:	Nolte Sheet Metal Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (Department of Industrial Relations) Part 1/3		01/21/2020
Summary:	Filed 1/21/20 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT .             NOLTE SHEET METAL, INC. ,Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH APPEALS BOARD,Defendant and Respondent; .             DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH,Real Party in Interestand Respondent. .             F076389 .             (Super. Ct. No. 16CECG03592) .             OPINION .             APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. INTRODUCTION .           Nolte Sheet Metal, Inc. (the Company), owned in part by Ernie Nolte, fabricates air conditioning ducts. Costs are awarded to respondentOccupational Safety and Health Appeals Board and real party in interest Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that decisions by the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board as to the propriety of citations against an employer are subject to a substantial evidence standard of review.
Citation:	No. F076389
WCC Citation:	No. F076389

Case Name:	Nolte Sheet Metal Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (Department of Industrial Relations) Part 2/3		01/21/2020
Summary:	Instead, it must weigh all the evidence for itself and make its owndecision about whichparty’s position is supported by a preponderance. Whereas Cal/OSHA “shoulders primary responsibility for administering and enforcing theCalifornia Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973. . . , Labor Code section 6300 et seq. ,”“through investigatingworkplaces and enforcing occupational safety and health standards” (Rick’s Electric, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Bd. (2000) 80 Cal. App. 4th 1023,1026), the Appeals Board “is an independent adjudicatory agency responsible, among other matters, for resolving appeals from citations” (id. at p. 1027). 27, 2006) [2006 WL 1062024] [“The [Appeals] Board is mindful that there is a separation of powers . . . . The [Occupational Safety and Health] Standards Board is vested with quasi-legislative authority to promulgate health and safety standards and safety orders. . . . [Cal/OSHA] has executive enforcement authority of the [California Occupational Safety and Health] Act . . . . The Appeals Board has quasi-judicial power to determine appeals from citations, penalties, and orders issued by [Cal/OSHA]. ”]. )
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that decisions by the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board as to the propriety of citations against an employer are subject to a substantial evidence standard of review.
Citation:	No. F076389
WCC Citation:	No. F076389

Case Name:	Nolte Sheet Metal Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (Department of Industrial Relations) Part 3/3		01/21/2020
Summary:	.           Consent is a well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement. .           Here, seven government officials from four government entities confronted the son of Nolte Sheet Metal’s owner. .           The threat of coercion is why courts look to whether officers have their guns drawn when consent is requested. Administrative Due Process .           Additionally, I have concerns with whether the present administrative scheme affords due process. “The findings and conclusions of the appeals board on questions of fact are conclusive and are not subject to review.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that decisions by the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board as to the propriety of citations against an employer are subject to a substantial evidence standard of review.
Citation:	No. F076389
WCC Citation:	No. F076389

Case Name:	Norcal Waste Systems v. State of California		07/13/2010
Summary:	NORCAL WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff Norcal Waste Systems, Inc. (Norcal) appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant State of California, Department of Transportation (the State). Norcal filed a complaint against Thomas and the State, and alleged it was entitled to recover damages from the State because the State "created and/or caused to exist a dangerous condition of public property within the State of California. "940-941; Higgins v. State of California (1997) 54 Cal. App. 4th 177, 185, abrogated on another point in Cornette. )Citing Cameron v. State of California (1972) 7 Cal. 3d 318, Norcal asserts that such a declaration was required in this case involving an older roadway.
Note:	The doctrine of design immunity barred an employer's suit against the state that sought to recoup workers' compensation benefits for an alleged design flaw in a roadway.
Citation:	C059908
WCC Citation:	WCC 36482010 CA

Case Name:	Northern California Collection Service, Inc. v. Salazar		03/19/2010
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT No. F057350 March 19, 2010 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COLLECTION SERVICE, INC. , PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT, v. MARIA OLGA SALAZAR, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. OPINION Defendant Maria Olga Salazar appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff Northern California Collection Services, Inc. (Northern California). These audits resulted in statements that were sent to Salazar; Salazar testified that she disputed the statements and there was no evidence to the contrary. In light of the causes of action Northern California pleaded, the evidence it presented at trial was insufficient to show the amount due. Northern California presented no evidence on the question of whether or when Salazar challenged the bills.
Note:	A debt collection service failed to prove that an employer owed and failed to pay State Fund approximately $75,000 in premiums.
Citation:	F057350
WCC Citation:	WCC 36112010 CA

Case Name:	Northrop Grumman vs. WCAB (Graves)		11/21/2002
Summary:	Background The current writ proceeding arises out of allegations Mr. Graves engaged in racial discrimination during training of Northrop employees and an ensuing investigation. Mr. Graves, a Caucasian man, was employed off and on as a tooling inspector for Northrop between 1981 and March 1999. Ms. Schroeder, a Northrop employee, made the racial discrimination allegation in a March 22, 1998, written statement. A Northrop report related: "Ms. Schroeder said she had commented to Mr. Lowe that he didn't have to take that from anyone [. ]There was no evidence of an intent to mislead, deceive, or defraud or of collusion or unlawful design by a Northrop employee.
Note:	Investigation of racial discrimination is good faith personnel action for purpose of 3208.3.
Citation:	103 CA4th 1021
WCC Citation:	WCC 28972002 CA

Case Name:	NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE		12/14/2020
Summary:	This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the accompanying Initial Statement of Reasons have been prepared to comply with the procedural requirements of section 5307. 4 and for the convenience of the regulated public to assist it in analyzing and commenting on this largely non-APA rulemaking process. At the hearing, any person may present statements or arguments orally or in writing relevant to the proposed action. Public comment will begin promptly at 10:00 AM and will conclude when the last speaker has finished his or her presentation. WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD: Any interested persons, or their authorized representatives, may submit written comments to the WCAB relevant to the proposed rulemaking. In addition, the above-cited materials may be accessed on the internet at http://www. dir. ca. gov/wcab/WCABProposedRegulations/Section10770/Section10770. htm. As of the date of this Notice, the rulemaking file consists of this Notice, the Initial Statement of Reasons, the proposed text of the regulations, and the Form 399.
Note:
Citation:	Notice
WCC Citation:

Case Name:	NovoPRO Risk Solutions, L.P. v. TIG Ins. Co.		03/16/2012
Summary:	Respondent TIG Insurance Company (TIG) issued a policy to Ward that ran from December 31, 2000 to December 31, 2001. Under the terms of the settlement, Ward contributed its $50,000 deductible under the TIG Policy, and TIG paid an additional $422,000 to fully resolve the White Knight Claim. The January 2008 e-mail did not request that TIG defend, indemnify or otherwise assist Ward in connection with the 2005 Claims. The January 2008 e-mail also did not advise TIG that the White Knight Claim was part of the USF&G Action. Ward's two-year delay in providing TIG with a copy of the USF&G complaint relieved TIG of any duty to defend.
Note:	A professional liability insurance carrier owed no duty to provide coverage to a malpractice claim, arising four years after the termination of its policy to a third-party claims administrator.
Citation:	D059066
WCC Citation:	WCC 38762012 CA

Case Name:	Nunez v. Steel Forming		05/21/2008
Summary:	Filed 5/21/08 Nunez v. Steel Forming CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8. 1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8. 1115(b). IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE ELIAS NUNEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STEEL FORMING, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents. * * * INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Elias Nunez suffered serious injuries while operating a power press in the course and scope of his employment with defendant Commercial Metal Forming (CMF). Nunez left the controls and went around to the back of the press to inspect the part that had been formed. The record shows CMF is a "dba" for Steel Forming, Inc. .
Note:	[Unpublished] Plaintiff failed to produce evidence and legal authority showing that (1) defendant's own design of the press provided for a guard which was never installed, or (2) defendant deliberately omitted a required point of operation guard from the design, fabrication or assembly of the press.
Citation:	G038568
WCC Citation:	WCC 33702008 CA