Case Name:	Sarabi v. WCAB		05/31/2007
Summary:	Sarabi was then evaluated by an agreed medical examiner (AME), Dr. Henry L. Edington, who reported on August 17, 2004, that Sarabi had a TTD and needed right shoulder surgery. Prior to the supplemental report, Narsi had been voluntarily providing Sarabi with TTD benefits since December 26, 2000, but, after receiving the report, it informed Sarabi on November 14, 2005, that "[p]ayments are ending 11/03/05 because Dr. Edington has declared that you are permanent and stationary as of 08/17/05. "The WCJ stated there was jurisdiction to issue the award even if the additional TTD arose on August 17, 2005, because Sarabi had filed a timely petition to reopen. Here, Sarabi filed the pertinent petition to reopen on November 15, 2002, less than five years from the date of his injury. *fn2* It appears this "overpayment" is for payments Narsi made to Sarabi from August 17, 2005 (the date Narsi alleges Sarabi became permanent and stationary) and November 3, 2005 (the date Narsi terminated payments).
Note:	The court finds TTD benefits may be awarded after five years if a 'new and further' disability arose within that time.
Citation:	151 Cal. App. 4th 920
WCC Citation:	WCC 32282007 CA

Case Name:	Save Mart STores vs. WCAB (Gwin)		02/14/1992
Summary:	SAVE MART STORES, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JULIE GWIN, Respondents. However, Save Mart contends that the decision of the Board that Gwin was therefore a qualified injured worker is not supported by substantial [3 Cal. App. 4th 724] evidence. Save Mart argues that there was no medical evidence presented to establish that Gwin was incapable of returning to work as an administrative assistant at Save Mart, so long as she was not under the supervision of Jerry Sauer. Save Mart alleges that other positions were available for Gwin within the company. In the order, it was noted that no response to the request had been received from the employer (Save Mart).
Note:	One is not a qualified injured worker merely because of an inability to coexist with other workers or supervisors, so long as an equivalent position is available at the same place of employment.
Citation:	3 CA4th 720
WCC Citation:	WCC 30281992 CA

Case Name:	Save Mart v. WCAB		01/11/2008
Summary:	Save Mart Supermarkets (Save Mart) petitions for a writ of review (Lab. A Save Mart claims adjuster advised both Young and Dr. Schroeder's staff that same day that Save Mart would not authorize payment to Dr. Schroeder because Young was required to use an employer-approved doctor during the first 30 days of her September 21, 2002, fall. Even if, as Save Mart alleges, Young's misdemeanor plea resulted from her deposition testimony as opposed to the history she provided to Dr. Allende at the FIRM, Save Mart again fails to point to any misstatement she provided to Dr. Curran. Attorney Fees Relating to Save Mart's Application for Adjudication Concluding Young had complied with Save Mart's directives, the WCAB adopted the WCJ's award of attorney fees in favor of Young arising out of Save Mart's application for adjudication. Save Mart contends section 4064, subdivision (c) is inapplicable here because Young filed an initial application for adjudication before Save Mart filed a subsequent application for adjudication disputing the recommendations of Drs.
Note:	[Unpublished] Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In the present case, the WCAB's decision was both reasonable and based on substantial evidence.
Citation:	F053535
WCC Citation:	WCC 32992008 CA

Case Name:	Scalice v. Perf. Cleaning Sys.		10/24/1996
Summary:	WILLIAM SCALICE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PERFORMANCE CLEANING SYSTEMS, Defendant and Respondent. OPINION DOSSEE, J. William Scalice obtained a judgment against Performance Cleaning Systems for injuries caused by a fall at work on a slippery floor which Performance had maintained. The principal issue on appeal is the appropriate method of crediting workers' compensation payments against Performance's liability to Scalice under Proposition 51 (Civ. Performance answered the complaint, and affirmatively alleged negligence by Scalice and his employer, Safeway, and requested a credit against the verdict for sums Scalice had received as workers' compensation benefits. Scalice was found to be 0 percent [50 Cal. App. 4th 225] negligent, Safeway was 30 percent negligent, and Performance was 70 percent negligent.
Note:	Defining 'serious and willful misconduct.'
Citation:	50 Cal.App.4th 221
WCC Citation:	WCC 23981996 CA

Case Name:	Scalice v. Performance Cleaning Systems		01/01/2001
Summary:	WILLIAM SCALICE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PERFORMANCE CLEANING SYSTEMS, Defendant and Respondent. OPINION DOSSEE, J. William Scalice obtained a judgment against Performance Cleaning Systems for injuries caused by a fall at work on a slippery floor which Performance had maintained. Performance answered the complaint, and affirmatively alleged negligence by Scalice and his employer, Safeway, and requested a credit against the verdict for sums Scalice had received as workers' compensation benefits. Scalice was found to be 0 percent [50 Cal. App. 4th 225] negligent, Safeway was 30 percent negligent, and Performance was 70 percent negligent. The parties were given the opportunity to address the appropriate method of allocating the credit to Performance for workers' compensation payments received by Scalice.
Note:	Defining
Citation:	50 Cal.App.4th 221
WCC Citation:	WCC 24002001 CA

Case Name:	Scharf v. Calvary Chapel of Temecula Valley et al.		02/04/2013
Summary:	SCHARF v. CALVARY CHAPEL OF TEMECULA VALLEY DENNIS SCHARF et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CALVARY CHAPEL OF TEMECULA VALLEY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Daley & Heft, Lee H. Roistacher and Mitchell D. Dean for Defendants and Respondents Calvary Chapel of Temecula Valley and Gary H. Nelson. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff and appellant Dennis Scharf sued defendants and respondents Calvary Chapel of Temecula Valley (Calvary), Donald Coop,*fn1 and Gary Nelson for damages after he was injured while performing work at Calvary. While Scharf was not a member of Calvary, he attended services on a weekly basis up to the time of the incident. Scharf v. Calvary Chapel of Temecula Valley et al. , E051885] RICHLI, J. , Concurring and Dissenting.
Note:	A parishioner who injured himself while performing construction work for his church can sue the church and its pastor in tort.
Citation:	E051885
WCC Citation:	WCC 39822013 CA

Case Name:	Schechter v. Nissanoff		02/20/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE HOLLINS SCHECHTER, APC, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JONATHAN NISSANOFF et al. , Defendants and Respondents. *fn1 Hollins represented Jonathan Nissanoff, M. D. , and San Diego Advanced Orthopedic Center (collectively Nissanoff) "in the case [entitled] Nissanoff v. Arruda, et al. ; Arruda v. Nissanoff, et al" (the Arruda matter) from "approximately 2004 to 2006. "Nissanoff apparently failed to pay Hollins for its services and, in August 2006, Hollins filed a complaint against Nissanoff to recover unpaid legal fees. Day Eisenberg contended disqualification was unnecessary because Eisenberg did not act as counsel for Nissanoff while he worked at Hollins and because there was no similarity between the Arruda matter and Hollins's attempt to recover legal fees from Nissanoff. Hollins also submitted the declaration of a woman who stated she and Eisenberg had dinner with Nissanoff in 2004 where it was her "recollection that legal issues involving Nissanoff were discussed .
Note:	[Unpublished] Eisenberg demonstrated, and the trial court found, he was not exposed to confidential information when he worked at Hollins. Accordingly, the denial of Hollins's motion to disqualify would have been proper under the modified substantial relationship test, which presumes access to confidential information.
Citation:	G038436
WCC Citation:	WCC 33202008 CA

Case Name:	Scheffield Med. Grp., Inc. v. WCAB		03/15/1999
Summary:	SCHEFFIELD MEDICAL GROUP, INC. , Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY et al. , Respondents. Dr. Michael Wai-Pui Lam, owner of the three medical groups and licensed radiologist, testified on behalf of Scheffield. Scheffield petitioned for reconsideration, raising arguments reiterated in its petition for review and discussed in detail, post. [1] Scheffield first contends that the Board erred in applying the 1993 version of section 4628 when services were rendered in 1991 and 1992. Scheffield contends that the decision in Scheffield v. Workers' Comp.
Note:	Findings of WCAB on questions of fact are conclusive/not subject to review if supported by substant. evidence.
Citation:	70 Cal.App.4th 868
WCC Citation:	WCC 27111999 CA

Case Name:	Scheftner v. Rio Linda School District		10/04/2004
Summary:	Note: This opinion was overruled by Rio Linda Union School Dist. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA JANELLE SCHEFTNER, Applicant, vs. RIO LINDA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Permissibly Self-Insured, Defendants. On July 19, 2004, the Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration filed by Rio Linda Union Elementary (defendant). He recommends that the matter be returned to him for this purpose only, but otherwise deny all other counts raised by defendant. "Existing order, decision or award" includes orders of closure of discovery at mandatory settlement conferences and orders of submission for decision.
Note:	Submission orders and orders closing discovery that issued prior to the enactment of SB 899 are
Citation:	69 CCC 1281
WCC Citation:	WCC 31092004 CA

Case Name:	Scheftner vs. Rio Linda School District		10/04/2004
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. SAC 0326274 JANELLE SCHEFTNER, Applicant, vs. RIO LINDA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Permissibly Self-Insured, Defendants. At trial on February 18, 2004, permanent disability and apportionment were listed as issues, among other issues, and applicant testified. On July 19, 2004, the Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration filed by Rio Linda Union Elementary (defendant). "Existing order, decision or award" includes orders of closure of discovery at mandatory settlement conferences and orders of submission for decision. Appeals Bd. , supra, 5 Cal. 4th at p. 387 [58 Cal. Comp. Cases at p. 289]; Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Workers' Comp.
Note:	Submission orders and orders closing discovery, that issued prior to the enactment of SB 899 on April 19, 2004, are 'existing' orders that cannot be reopened due to the prohibition set forth in Section 47.
Citation:	68 CCC 1281; En Banc
WCC Citation:	WCC 30312004 CA