Important Recent California Case Law

Thursday, February 20, 2014 | 0

NEW! J.M. Equipment v. Potter Farms, F066705, (02/06/2014): An employer will not be liable for indemnifying a third party against a lawsuit filed by an injured employee unless there is a written indemnity agreement between the employer and third party that has been signed by both parties, the 5th District Court of Appeals ruled.

NEW! Kim v. B.C.D. Tofu House, ADJ9086333 (02/07/2014): Labor Code Section 5402(b) gives an employer 90 days to reject liability for a claim once it is filed, otherwise the alleged injury will be presumed to be compensable. If the employer rejects the claim, then the worker is able to treat outside the MPN. The WCAB said an employer can get a hearing on whether the employee has to treat within its MPN before making a decision to accept or deny. 

NEW! Carter v. Caleb Brett, 12-16846, (02/03/2014): The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a federal trial judge's cursory explanation for reducing an attorney fee award to a prevailing claimant under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act was insufficient for it to uphold the judge's ruling.

NEW! County of Nevada v. WCAB (Lade), C074133, (01/29/2014): The 3rd District Court of Appeal has denied rehearing of an injured deputy sheriff's claim that the "shift differential" pay he had received for working a night shift before he was injured should have been included in his Labor Code Section 4850 benefits.

NEW! Larkin v. WCAB (City of Marysville), C065891, (01/28/2014): The benefits provided under Labor Code Section 4458.2 extend only to volunteer peace officers and not to regularly sworn, salaried peace officers, the 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled.

Gonzalez v. Seal Methods, B246825, (01/24/2014): A statute that waives workers' comp exclusive remedy when workers are injured after employers remove safety guards from power presses does not apply to an unattached device that the worker moves into and out of the point of operation, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled.

Estrada v. Kaiser Foundation Hospital, B247912, (01/24/2014): The 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled that an employee's claims that her employer had directed her care provider to misdiagnose her – however poorly articulated and improbable – could not be dismissed on demurrer.

Renswick v. Tapanes et al., B248055, (01/21/2014): The California 2nd District Court of Appeal revived an elementary school teacher's lawsuit against the Los Angeles Unified School District because the trial court did not address her allegations that the district had failed to accommodate her disability and engage in the interactive process, as required by the Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Kaabinejadian v. Rabobank, E056481, (01/14/2014): The 4th District Court of Appeal revived a worker's claims for discrimination, wrongful termination and breach of contract against his former employer, finding his claims were not time-barred because the statute of limitations had been tolled while his workers' compensation claim was pending.

Cornerstone Development Partners v. Superior Court of Riverside County, et al., E057726, (12/31/13): California's Privette Doctrine barred an injured subcontractor from suing a general contractor for his work-related injuries, the 4th District Court of Appeal concluded.