Case Name:	Paris v. USI Southern California Ins. Services		09/12/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE LANCE PARIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. USI OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff and appellant Lance Paris (Paris) sued his ex-employer, defendant and respondent USI of Southern California Insurance Services, Inc. , a California corporation (USI). Prior to April 1, 2003, USI provided loss control services to its clients by hiring Paris as an independent contractor. The billing procedures Neither Rastigue nor any other USI employee asked Paris to provide USI with invoices for loss control services, nor did any USI employee tell Paris that he must "bill, invoice, and collect for loss control services" in order to earn a commission. [P]roducers at USI began to give free loss control services to their clients, i. e. , [Paris] would provide the same services to the clients, but the producers refused to charge the clients, thus .
Note:	[Unpublished] There are triable issues of fact as to whether USI breached the April 1, 2003, employment agreement by failing to pay Paris all wages, bonuses, and commissions.
Citation:	B200225
WCC Citation:	WCC 34232008 CA

Case Name:	Parish v. WCAB		05/04/1989
Summary:	HERBERT PARISH, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and COUNTY OF VENTURA, Respondents (Opinion by Abbe, J. , with Stone (S. The WCAB, based on the conflict in the medical evidence between Dr. Markovitz and Dr. Winsor, granted reconsideration and referred the matter to an independent medical examiner, Dr. Brotman. In its decision after reconsideration, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's finding, and found applicant did not sustain industrial heart injury. Here, the WCAB, relying heavily on Dr. Brotman's opinion, conceded that the presumption of Labor Code section 3212. 5 was applicable, yet erroneously inferred applicant's symptoms must have resulted from surmised contemporaneous nonindustrial factors. The WCAB did not specify, and the record does not disclose, what '. . . contemporaneous nonwork-related event. . . ,' if any, was the sole cause of applicant's heart trouble.
Note:	a congenital disease is entitled to the presumption if there is an employment nexus.
Citation:	210 Cal.App.3d 92
WCC Citation:	WCC 4151989 CA

Case Name:	Park v. Arkema, Inc.		08/30/2012
Summary:	PARK v. ARKEMA, INC. WHASAM PARK et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ARKEMA, INC. , et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Plaintiffs and appellants Whasam Park (Park) and Anne Park (collectively, plaintiffs) appeal from the summary judgment entered in favor of defendants and respondents Arkema, Inc. (Arkema) and Turkish Products, Inc. (collectively, the Arkema defendants) in this personal injury action premised on alleged occupational exposures to various toxic chemicals. Park alleged that his exposure to benzene-containing chemical products was a substantial factor in causing his leukemia. Plaintiffs filed this action on April 13, 2006 against the manufacturers and suppliers of various chemical products to which Park was allegedly exposed. In his August 25, 2008 declaration, Brautbar opined that exposure to benzene can cause the type of leukemia from which Park suffers.
Note:	A former machine tool operator suffering from leukemia should have been allowed to present the opinion of a doctor linking his condition to his workplace exposure to benzene in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, even though that doctor was no longer designated as an expert witness.
Citation:	B229513
WCC Citation:	WCC 39282012 CA

Case Name:	Parker v. WCAB		10/01/1992
Summary:	DENNIS PARKER, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and FREMONT POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondents. (1977) 75 Cal. App. 3d 113, 118 [142 Cal. Rptr. 42]; Bauer v. County of Los Angeles (1969) 34 Cal. Comp. Cases 594 [Board en banc opn. ]. )II On May 9, 1991, the instant case proceeded to hearing before WCJ Robert Laws at the Oakland Board. Thus, an injured employee may be fully capable of working and his or her medical condition not yet permanent and stationary. It is immaterial to our decision that the parties stipulated to an apportionment of PD between the two injuries.
Note:	Injuries cannot be combined for rating if no common body part though P&S at same time.
Citation:	9 Cal.App.4th 1636, 57 CCC 608
WCC Citation:	WCC 28671992 CA

Case Name:	Parks v. WCAB		03/21/1983
Summary:	On this day, Parks drove to the exit of the lot and turned left onto Compton Boulevard. At that moment, three youths pulled open the driver's door on Parks' car, wrestled her purse away from her and fled. Parks was unable to return to work for three weeks as a result of the physical and emotional trauma from this assault. However, our decisions in Greydanus and Henslick indicate that the WCAB read Chairez too narrowly in denying compensation to Parks. The WCAB, however, ignored the fact that the risk to which Parks was subjected also met the second prong of the Chairez test.
Note:	Going and coming rule not a bar to compensation where teacher was exposed to special risk in parking lot.
Citation:	33 Cal. 3d 585
WCC Citation:	WCC 30561983 CA

Case Name:	Parkwoods Comm. Assn. v. CIGA		08/07/2006
Summary:	James A. Richman This action was brought by plaintiff Parkwoods Community Association (Parkwoods) following the settlement of its earlier construction defect action arising out of the construction of the Parkwoods condominium development in Oakland. Parkwoods and CIGA agreed upon the amount that CIGA would pay Parkwoods if CIGA is required to pay the obligations of Reliance and the Reliance Insureds, and agreed that this declaratory relief action would be brought to resolve their dispute as to whether Parkwoods' claim is a "covered claim" within the meaning of Insurance Code section 1063. 1, subdivision (c)*fn1 that CIGA is obligated to pay. . . . 'CIGA issues no policies, collects no premiums, makes no profits, and assumes no contractual obligations to the insureds. 'Permitting Parkwoods to recover from CIGA in the present case would, in effect, sanction an indirect recovery that could not be obtained directly. The matter is remanded with instructions to vacate the judgment entered in favor of Parkwoods and to enter judgment in favor of CIGA.
Note:	Because other insurance was available to Parkwoods, CIGA is not obligated to satisfy a 'covered claim'.
Citation:	141 Cal. App. 4th 1362
WCC Citation:	WCC 31722006 CA

Case Name:	Parrent v. SBC-Pacific Bell Telephone Company		08/30/2016
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA  .             GREGORY PARRENT, Applicant, .             v. .             SBC-PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Permissibly Self-Insured; .             administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Defendants. .             Case No. ADJ339088 (SDO 0304788) .             OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION .             We granted reconsideration in this matter to provide an opportunity to further study the legal and factual issues raised by the Petition for Reconsideration. I.   .           Applicant sustained an industrial injury to his bilateral upper extremities while employed by  SBC-Pacific Bell Telephone Company as a service representative during the period May 10, 1999 through November 17, 2002. .           For the foregoing reasons, .           IT IS ORDERED that, as our Decision After Reconsideration, the Findings of Fact, issued September 8, 2015, is AFFIRMED. .           WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD .           KATHERINE ZALEWSKI .           !CONCUR, .           DEIDRA E. LOW2 .           I CONCUR (See Separate Concurring Opinion), .           MARGUERITE SWEENEY .           DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA .           AUG 3 0 2016 CONCURRING OPINION  .           I concur with the detennination to affinn the WCJ's finding that he did not have jurisdiction to address the issue of the medical necessity of the treatment recommended by applicant's MPN treating physician, where the defendant submitted the request for authorization to utilization review (UR) pursuant to Labor Code section 4610 et seq.
Note:
Citation:	ADJ339088 (SDO 0304788)
WCC Citation:	ADJ339088 (SDO 0304788)

Case Name:	Parrent v. WCAB		01/05/2017
Summary:	  .   D071162   .    WCAB No. ADJ339088   .   THE COURT:   .   From 1999 to 2002, Gregory Parrent suffered industrial injury while working for Pacific Bell Telephone Company (Pac Bell). On December 12, 2014, Parrent (through his counsel, Robert A. McLaughlin) requested an independent medical review (IMR) of the UR determination. Parrent sought reconsideration by the WCAB, arguing (1) the "WCAB has immediate jurisdiction over a treatment recommendation of a [MPN] treating physician prior to [UR]," (2) the WCAB has "immediate jurisdiction over a treatment recommendation of an MPN treating physician after UR and/or URIndependent Medical Review ('IMR')," and (3) the "statutory framework does not permit UR-IMR under §§ 4610, 4610. 5 and 4610. 6 of a treatment recommendation made by a MPN treating physician within Article 2. 3. "   .   The WCJ issued a report and recommendation to the WCAB recommending denial of Parrent's request for reconsideration. The WCAB concluded no statutory or regulatory authority supported the conclusion advanced by Parrent and the applicable statutes and regulations bind employers to the UR process set forth in sections 4610, 4610. 5 and 4610. 6.   .   "In considering a petition for writ of review of a decision of the WCAB, this court's authority is limited. [We] must determine whether the evidence, when viewed in light of the entire record, supports the award of the WCAB.
Note:	The 4th District Court of Appeal on Thursday denied review of a dispute over whether an employer can refer a treatment recommendation from a doctor within its own medical provider network through utilization review and independent medical review.
Citation:	WCAB No. ADJ339088)
WCC Citation:

Case Name:	Pasquinelli v. State of CA		02/20/1975
Summary:	ROBERT J. PASQUINELLI et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al. , Defendants and Appellants (Opinion by Friedman, J. , with Puglia, P. J. , and Janes, J. , concurring. )Petitioner Pasquinelli suffered several injuries, the last on May 30, 1970, and received 226-7/8 days of benefits under section 4800, separating for permanent disability on October 15, 1970. In the trial court the state asserted the bar of a one-year period of limitations; petitioners sought shelter under the five-year statute governing some workmen's compensation proceedings. (Monroe v. Trustees of the California State Colleges, 6 Cal. 3d 399, 405 [99 Cal. Rptr. 129, 491 P. 2d 1105]. )Petitioner Pasquinelli did not voluntarily relinquish the salaried leave of absence granted by Labor Code section 4800.
Note:	Claim for 1 yr. salary needs to be filed within 3 yrs. of employer's wrongful termination of benefits.
Citation:	45 Cal.App.3d 457
WCC Citation:	WCC 26751975 CA

Case Name:	Pasquotto v. Hayward Lumber		02/27/2006
Summary:	The Current Injuries On October 8, 1999, applicant was seen by Steven Dosch, M. D. , for a pre-employment physical examination for the truck driving job with Hayward Lumber. On or about October 19, 1999, applicant was hired as a driver by Hayward Lumber. As such, I believe Mr. Pasquotto would have had fifty percent of his current level of lumbar spine disability even in the absence of his employment at Hayward Lumber. The remaining fifty percent of lumbar spine disability is directly related to the Applicant's employment and injuries at Hayward Lumber. "On October 6, 2004, the WCJ issued rating instructions for applicant's December 2001 and August 2, 2002 back injuries with Hayward Lumber.
Note:	Order approving a compromise and release settlement is not a prior award of permanent disability for apportionment purposes.
Citation:	71 CCC 223
WCC Citation:	WCC 31452006 CA