California Case Law Update

Friday, October 31, 2014 | 0

NEW! San Francisco State University v. WCAB (Jones), A141793, (10/22/2014): The California 1st District Court of Appeal has declined a request to publish a September ruling which found that an injured worker was not entitled to a fee award based on amendments to the Labor Code from the passage of SB 863 while her case was still pending.

NEW! Old Republic Construction Program Group v. The Boccardo Law Firm, H037989, (10/21/2014): The California 6th District Court of Appeal is standing by its decision from earlier this year that an insurance carrier's claims against an applicant attorney for disbursing the funds from a third-party settlement to his client without the carrier's consent did not amount to a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

NEW! State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Notis Enterprises, B218667, (10/20/2014): A California appellate court ruled that the State Compensation Insurance Fund was entitled to terminating sanctions in a dispute with an employer over its unpaid premiums based on its insureds refusal to cooperate in the discovery process.

NEW! Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court (Lee), B249546, (10/15/2014): A California appellate court ruled that a group of delivery drivers who were allegedly misclassified as independent contractors can rely on the definition of an "employee" contained in Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders to the extent that they are alleging their misclassification violates an IWC wage order, otherwise the common law definition of "employee" must be used to analyze their claims.

NEW! Breeden v. The Superior Court of San Bernardino (Davis), E061553, (10/10/2014): An animal control officer who was bitten by a dog can't sue the property owner because he was trained for and assumed the risk of encountering a dangerous animal, the 4th Appellate District Court ruled.

NEW! Christensen v. Illinois Tool Works, ADJ7028736, (10/2014): A California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board panel has ruled that a doctor's request for authorization can imply that an injury was sustained in the scope of employment.

NEW! Dubon v. World Restoration, ADJ4274323, (10/06/2014): The California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, sitting en banc, ruled that a utilization-review decision will be deemed invalid and ineligible for the independent medical review process created by Senate Bill 863 only if it is untimely.

NEW! Andrews v. Verizon Communications, D065965, (09/29/2014): The employee of an independent contractor hired to perform security services at a business could not sue the business owner in tort for her injuries from falling out of the chair which the business owner had allowed the independent contractor to put in the guard shack.

NEW! Ovick v. National Semiconductor Corp., H038108, and Studendorff v. National Semiconductor Corp., H037739, (09/25/2014): A California appellate court ruled that one mother can proceed with a lawsuit against her former employer for allegedly exposing her to a hazardous chemical while she was pregnant with her daughter, but a colleague's claim based on the same type of exposure was time-barred.

NEW! San Francisco State University v. WCAB (Jones), A141793, (09/29/2014):The California 1st District Court of Appeal  vacated a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision finding that an applicant's entitlement to an attorney fee award was unaffected by the passage of Senate Bill 863 during the pendency of her case.

NEW! Sawin v. The McClatchy Company, 34-2009-00033950, (09/22/2014): A case involving the newspaper carriers for the Sacramento Bee has become the latest in a string of California court decisions ruling that such workers are employees, not independent contractors.

NEW! Allen v. WCAB (AT&T), ADJ3147570, (9/24/2014): An injured worker could not demand reinstatement to her former position based on allegations that she had been wrongfully fired because of her injury when she was already subject to a final and binding judgment that she had been lawfully terminated, a California appellate court ruled.

NEW! Solus Industrial Innovations v. Superior Court, G047661, (9/22/2014): Federal law does not allow the Orange County District Attorney to recover civil penalties based on an employer's alleged violation of workplace safety standards under California's Unfair Competition Law, the 4th District Court of Appeal has again ruled.

NEW! Kaabinejadian v. Miller, E057627, (09/12/2014): A California appellate court ruled that a worker's lawsuit against the attorney who successfully defended his employer against his workers' compensation claim was properly dismissed as a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

NEW! Royster v. NFL Europe, ADJ7597520, (09/2014): An athlete's verbal agreement to play professional football for a team in Europe during a phone call to his Southern California home was enough to give the state of California jurisdiction over his claim for benefits based on the cumulative trauma injuries he suffered during the course of his career, a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board panel ruled.

NEW! Monarch Consulting et al v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh et al., (09/11/2014): The 1st Department of the New York Appellate Division issued a 5-2 decision finding clauses requiring California employers to arbitrate in the Empire State any policy disputes with National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh are void because the AIG subsidiary never filed the documents containing the agreements with the Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau or the California Department of Insurance. 

NEW! McCarthy v. Department of Transportation, E055157 and E056694, (09/12/2014): A California appellate court reinstated a jury's $6,674,627.98 verdict against Caltrans for a construction worker's injuries from a falling utility pole during a major freeway extension project.

NEW! Jimenez v. Allstate Insurance Co., 12-56112, (09/03/2014): A federal appellate court upheld a decision to allow a group of some 800 Allstate employees to proceed as a class on claims that the carrier had failed to pay them for overtime and meal breaks in violation of California law.

NEW! Kao v. The University of San Francisco, A135750, (09/2014): A private university did not violate a former math professor's employment and privacy rights by firing him when he refused to submit to a fitness-for-duty examination after other faculty members and school administrators reported that his erratic behavior was frightening them.

NEW! State Compensation Insurance Fund v. De Leon, B250854, (09/03/2014): A California appellate court ruled that the State Compensation Insurance Fund was not entitled to summary judgment on its breach of contract claim against an individual who allegedly had worked as a collection agent for it.