Case Law Library
| Case Name: | Virginia Surety, Inc. v. WCAB | 01/31/2008 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | Virginia Surety, Inc. petitions for a writ of review of a decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (the Board) affirming an award to respondent Larry Wragg. Virginia Surety contends the award was improperly calculated using the 1997 schedule for rating permanent disabilities, instead of the schedule that went into effect on January 1, 2005. Virginia Surety petitioned for reconsideration on the ground the WCJ should have adopted a permanent disability rating under the 2005 schedule. Virginia Surety petitioned this court for writ of review. Virginia Surety petitioned the Supreme Court for writ of review. | ||
| Note: | [Unpublished] The 1997 schedule applies in the present case, based on the statutory reading of section 4660, subdivision (d)(2) as established under Genlyte Group, LLC, etc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., B198100, Jan. 3, 2008. | ||
| Citation: | B197490 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 33112008 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Visalia School District v. WCAB (Hernandez) | 12/07/1995 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | Visalia School District, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Lupe Hernandez, Respondents. Respondent/applicant Lupe Hernandez telephoned the claims administrator of petitioner/employer Visalia School District and requested vocational rehabilitation benefits. Rehabilitation. 'Dr. Wells also stated:Mr. Hernandez does not meet the criteria of being a Qualified Injured Worker under DIA guidelines. If employment in the maintenance and janitorial field in an appropriate setting could be found, this would be ideal. | ||
| Note: | Written request for rehab. benefits not required; phone call to employer's claims administrator suffices. | ||
| Citation: | 60 CCC 1158 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 28021995 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Von Arx v. Max Equipment Rental | 04/22/2008 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | Filed 4/22/08 Von Arx v. Max Equipment Rental CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8. 1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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). Plaintiff Douglas Von Arx (Plaintiff) was injured in a workplace accident involving a trenching attachment (trencher) for a ride-upon trenching machine, manufactured by defendant Charles Machine Works, Inc. (Charles), and rented to his employer by Max Equipment Rental, LLC (Max). The rental contract stated that the customer acknowledged examining the equipment upon delivery, and usage of it would constitute acknowledgment that the equipment was in good mechanical condition at the time. Max is in the business of renting construction equipment, and rented this trencher to Western on August 18, 2003. Plaintiff had conducted safety meetings about using the equipment and had checked the equipment for loose bolts or nuts and would normally tighten them. | ||
| Note: | [Unpublished] Insufficient evidence to justify the necessary, reasonable or logical inferences of causation from employer's actions or inactions,' so nonsuit ruling was proper. | ||
| Citation: | D048759 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 33472008 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Voortman v. Stanislaus County Employees' Retirement Assn. | 04/05/2012 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | Arthur Voortman v. Stanislaus County Employees' Retirement Association No. F062610 (Cal. App. Dist. 5 04/05/2012) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT F062610 April 5, 2012 ARTHUR VOORTMAN, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT, v. STANISLAUS COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. The judgment set aside a decision of appellant Stanislaus County Employees' Retirement Association (hereafter, the association) that denied respondent's application for disability retirement. In light of these considerations, on October 23, 2007, respondent applied for service retirement (i. e. , "regular" retirement based on age and length of service) and attempted to apply simultaneously for service-connected disability retirement. The trial court found that there was no prohibition on simultaneous filing of applications for service retirement and disability retirement. *fn3 A county employee covered by a CERL retirement plan is a member of the association and, upon reaching retirement age, may apply for service retirement based on the employee's age and length of service. | ||
| Note: | A former police chief was not entitled to have the administrative denial of his disability retirement application set aside based on the two-year delay in its processing because he had elected to take service retirement while his disability retirement application remained pending. | ||
| Citation: | F062610 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 38832012 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Vradenburgh v. Southern California Edison Co. | 12/06/2010 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | HAROLD K. VRADENBURGH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. A truck driver, who had worked at Southern California Edison's San Onofre nuclear power facility for some four years, was injured while unloading Edison materials from an Edison truck. The undisputed evidence, including the truck driver's deposition testimony, established that Edison had direct supervision and control over him. Because Edison did not have an agreement with a local council of building trades unions, Edison could not directly hire union personnel to work at San Onofre. He drove Edison trucks within the facility to load and unload warehouse materials "everything from toilet paper to plywood, pipe, prefabricated pipe. | ||
| Note: | A special employer's citation of its employment agreements helped it prove that it had the right to control a trucker's work and establish an exclusive remedy defense. | ||
| Citation: | G041931 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 36882010 CA | ||
