Case Name:	Adams v. Sutter North Medical Foundation		10/02/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) CATHERINE ADAMS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SUTTER NORTH MEDICAL FOUNDATION et al. , Defendants and Respondents. (FEHA)),*fn1 plaintiff Catherine Adams appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendants Sutter North Medical Foundation (Foundation) and Julie Eckardt. Defendants' separate statement of undisputed facts included the following: The Foundation is a multi-specialty medical facility with care centers in the Yuba-Sutter community. In 1987, plaintiff began working for the Marysville Medical Group, which later merged with the Foundation. On January 2, 2003, the Foundation sent plaintiff a letter, stating, "We understand that you are off work due to a medical condition," and her leave was not protected by the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) because the Foundation had not received the necessary physician certification.
Note:	[Unpublished] An inability to work with one's supervisor does not establish the requisite limitation on the major life activity of employment necessary to constitute an actionable disability under FEHA.
Citation:	C052407
WCC Citation:	WCC 32642007 CA

Case Name:	Addington v. Indus. Indem. Co.		04/07/1972
Summary:	KEN ADDINGTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. Facts -- Superior Court We shall confine our statement of facts to those which appear in our record in the case of Addington, et al. , vs. Industrial Indemnity Company, et al. fn. 1 None of the procedural differences between that case and the other three has any bearing on any issue before us. The failure to pay interest was caused by a policy and practice of defendant not to pay interest on awards. By law payments received were, however, applied first to extinguish interest and only then credited against the principal due.
Note:	Lower court not prevented by res judicata from considering claims.
Citation:	24 Cal.App.3d 802, 37 CCC 312
WCC Citation:	WCC 26191972 CA

Case Name:	Addington v. Industrial Indem. Co.		04/07/1972
Summary:	KEN ADDINGTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. Facts -- Superior Court We shall confine our statement of facts to those which appear in our record in the case of Addington, et al. , vs. Industrial Indemnity Company, et al. fn. 1 None of the procedural differences between that case and the other three has any bearing on any issue before us. The failure to pay interest was caused by a policy and practice of defendant not to pay interest on awards. By law payments received were, however, applied first to extinguish interest and only then credited against the principal due.
Note:	WCAB's denial of relief didn't have res judicata effect on class action in superior court.
Citation:	24 Cal.App.3d 802
WCC Citation:	WCC 26071972 CA

Case Name:	Addison v. County of Los Angeles		11/03/2008
Summary:	B201007 c/w B203213 November 3, 2008 JOSEPH C. ADDISON, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. APPEAL from a judgment and order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James C. Chalfant, Judge. This case arises from a summary judgment entered in favor of the respondents, County of Los Angeles, Mark Pestrella and Hector Bordas. Ct. Los Angeles County No. BC328195) against the County, alleging several incidents of racial discrimination and retaliation. Here, the Los Angeles County Civil Service Rules establish a procedure for discharging a County employee like Addison.
Note:	[Unpublished] The record fully supports the trial court's conclusions.
Citation:	B201007 c/w B203213
WCC Citation:	WCC 34562008 CA

Case Name:	Adir International LLC v. Travelers Indemnity Co.		12/30/2020
Summary:	_______________________ INTRODUCTION The Travelers Indemnity Co. appeals from an order granting a motion for reconsideration and declaring arbitration provisions unenforceable and void. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. Workers’ Compensation Insurance The Policy Adir International, LLC operates the Curacao chain of retail department stores. Thus, a company with average losses of $500,000, may be charged $750,000 in premium; $500,000 to cover expected loss payments and $250,000 in fees. ” (Matter of Adir International, LLC (Nov. pp. On August 25, 2014, Travelers sent Adir a letter demanding arbitration pursuant to the agreement. Travelers sought arbitration regarding “the amount of premium currently owing to Travelers by Adir .
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that an arbitration provision in an agreement between a workers’ compensation insurance carrier and an employer was void, since the agreement had not been filed with the Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau.
Citation:	No. B293415
WCC Citation:	No. B293415

Case Name:	Adler-Galloway v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc.		08/26/2010
Summary:	FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On April 4, 2006, Entertainment Partners provided its employee Adler-Galloway to work for CBS as an extra on a television show. The sound stage where the show was filming was leased and operated by CBS. On March 21, 2008, Adler-Galloway filed a personal injury action against several defendants, including CBS, for negligence and premises liability. In addition, the declaration provided no reason to believe CBS was not named as an alternate employer insured as CBS claimed. Adler-Galloway provided no evidence to show that CBS was not named as an alternate employer insured under the policy.
Note:	CBS Broadcasting's exclusive remedy argument prevailed against an extra's premises liability suit by providing declarations that her employer's insurance policy named CBS as a special employer, the 2nd District Court of Appeal concluded.
Citation:	B218163
WCC Citation:	WCC 36602010 CA

Case Name:	Advekian v. 20th Century Fox		06/22/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR EDWARD AVEDIKIAN, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman, Kevin D. Smith, Anne K. McIntyre and Nicholas M. Gedo for Defendant and Respondent Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. The complaint was amended to name Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (Fox) and Davis Entertainment Company (Davis) as Doe defendants on a theory of vicarious liability because Nevarez allegedly was acting as their employee at the time of the accident. As to Fox, the trial court refused to extend the special risk exception to the going-and-coming rule as appellant urged. Opinion Footnotes *fn1 Although appellant appealed from the judgment in favor of both Fox and Davis, in his opening brief, he stated that he was only pursuing the appeal as to Fox.
Note:	A sleepy worker's long hours did not create vicarious liability for his employer in a tort action under respondeat superior.
Citation:	B205933
WCC Citation:	WCC 35362009 CA

Case Name:	Adventist Health v. WCAB		10/23/2012
Summary:	ADVENTIST HEALTH v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD ADVENTIST HEALTH, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and EVELYN FLETCHER, Respondents. The petition for a writ of review by the self-insured employer, Adventist Health (Adventist), is but the latest installment in the ongoing battle over Evelyn Fletcher's treatment. Fletcher did not always prevail in the various disputes that erupted; Adventist prevailed in at least two of its petitions for reconsideration before the WCAB. Like Dr. Malik, whom Adventist had successfully removed, Dr. Rodriguez had not submitted any medical reports to Adventist. Neither the judge, Adventist, nor Fletcher has cited any statutory or regulatory authority that permits the WCAB to withhold medical reports.
Note:	An employee was not entitled to reimbursement for the treatment she received from doctors who were not designated as her primary treating physicians, had not been approved by Adventist, did not provide any treatment plan or medical reports, and did not consider the treatment plan provided by the lead physician..
Citation:	C069906
WCC Citation:	WCC 39442012 CA

Case Name:	Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v. WCAB		11/15/1973
Summary:	AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, ALVIN H. COLTHARP et al. , Respondents (Opinion by The Court. )Finally, section 5303 provides as follows: 'There is but one cause of action for each injury coming within the provisions of this division. The specific incidents applicant recalled and filed on were clearly an aggravation of a pre-existing condition that started in 1948. 'The referee concluded that the lay and medical evidence substantially supported the finding of 'a cumulative trauma injury. 'In this regard, we shall initially focus on the correctness of the WCAB determination that the applicant did not suffer a 'specific' injury in 1969.
Note:	Whether injury is to be treated as specific or cumulative is issue of fact and conclusive upon review.
Citation:	35 Cal.App.3d 329, 38 CCC 720
WCC Citation:	WCC 27371973 CA

Case Name:	Aguilar v. Heiman		05/29/2009
Summary:	Filed 5/29/09 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT FREDDY AGUILERA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ROBERT P. HEIMAN et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Law Offices of Bradford L. Treusch and Bradford L. Treusch for Defendant and Respondent Robert P. Heiman. On April 16, 2007, almost 10 years later, Aguilera filed this civil action against respondents Robert P. Heiman, individually and doing business as Pegasus Properties (Heiman), and 2612 Montana Avenue Owners Association (Association). The last day to commence an action under section 3706 therefore was June 16, 2002, for Heiman and August 12, 2002, for the Association. Although not reflected in the record before us, Heiman asserts in his brief that the petition for the joinder of Heiman and Association in the workers' compensation proceeding was filed by codefendant Hruby and not Aguilera.
Note:	Claim is barred by the one-year statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure former section 340, subdivision (3) and the equitable tolling doctrine does not apply where original claim is not timely filed.
Citation:	B206790
WCC Citation:	WCC 35272009 CA