Case Name:	Ashley v. WCAB		08/01/1995
Summary:	AUDLEY ASHLEY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, PRODUCTION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION et al. , Respondents. Facts and Procedural History Applicant Audley Ashley, born June 8, 1948, was employed in various clerical capacities with different employers, and developed severe carpal tunnel symptoms in both hands and extremities. While on a banking errand for her employer, the San Luis Obispo YMCA, applicant's vehicle was hit by another car. This employer did not advise applicant of her compensation rights, either, and in addition was uninsured for workers' compensation. The purpose of this section is to overrule the decision in Jensen v. WCAB, 136 Cal. App. 3d 1042 [186 Cal. Rptr.
Note:	Employer need not compensate a worker for a disability from a preexisting perm. disability.
Citation:	37 Cal.App.4th 320, 60 CCC 683
WCC Citation:	WCC 24751995 CA

Case Name:	Astudillo v. Duggleby		09/26/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE JOSE ASTUDILLO et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. KURT DUGGLEBY, Defendant and Appellant. FACTS AND PROCEDURE While working at his landscape job, Jose Astudillo was struck by a car driven by Kurt Duggleby. As part of the settlement, Zurich assigned to Duggleby its $92,787. 56 lien on any judgment Astudillo might obtain against Duggleby. The trial court entered a judgment that recited the jury's verdict, but which stated because Duggleby held the Zurich's lien, Astudillo would have to recover a verdict in excess of $92,787. 56 before Duggleby was obliged to pay anything on the judgment. The judgment then permitted Duggleby to assert the Zurich lien to offset any remaining balance that would otherwise have been owed to Astudillo.
Note:	[Unpublished] It is participation in creating the common fund, or the fund from which a lien may be satisfied, that is relevant to the application of section 3856. Nominal participation is not sufficient and 'the question of whether a party is an active participant in litigation is one of fact for the trial court to decide.
Citation:	G038287, 05CC08248
WCC Citation:	WCC 32612007 CA

Case Name:	Atascadero USD v. WCAB (Geredes)		05/28/2002
Summary:	ATASCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD; CARRIE GEREDES, Respondents. COUNSEL Goldman, Magdalin & Krikes, Kim A. Enriquez, George A. Krikes for Petitioner Atascadero Unified School District. She saw a psychiatrist who diagnosed major depression and found her temporarily totally disabled from October 18 through December 1999. The WCJ found that no compensable psychiatric injury occurred because the gossip concerned a personal matter unrelated to Geredes' employment. We annul the award and remand to the WCAB with directions to withdraw its order granting reconsideration and issue a new order denying Geredes' petition for reconsideration.
Note:	Gossip insufficient to support claim for psychiatric injury.
Citation:	98 Cal.App.4th 880
WCC Citation:	WCC 28552002 CA

Case Name:	Atlantic Richfield Co. v. WCAB		05/20/1982
Summary:	ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CARMAN ARVIZU et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Richardson, J. , with Mosk, Kaus and Broussard, JJ. , and Hastings, J. , concurring. First, in cases in which the surviving spouse is employed, how should partial dependency be determined and death benefits computed?[31 Cal. 3d 720] The Legislature elected not to reinstate the presumption of total dependency, and in 1979 it amended section 3501, removing subdivision (a). Several different approaches have been suggested for determining the appropriate amount of the award to a partial dependent. 'The marital community is something more than the sum of the economic interests of individuals who make it up.
Note:	For partial dependency, widow must establish annual amount of support from husband's earnings.
Citation:	31 Cal.3d 715, 47 CCC 500
WCC Citation:	WCC 25811982 CA

Case Name:	Aubry v. WCAB		07/28/1997
Summary:	LLOYD W. AUBRY, JR. , as Director, etc. , Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, EDGAR AMORES et al. , Respondents. If the award is not paid by the employer, the award, upon application by the person entitled thereto, shall be paid by UEF. Proper service of the required documents on an employer is essential to the Board's personal jurisdiction of the employer. Comp. Cases 254, establishes that the employer must be served with a copy of the application for adjudication of claim. An application for adjudication was only filed with the Board at any time there was a dispute, i. e. , when trial was required on an issue.
Note:	Service of claim form is proper notice to employer for injuries in years 1990-93.
Citation:	56 Cal.App.4th 1032, 62 CCC 870
WCC Citation:	WCC 24371997 CA

Case Name:	Audiss v. City of Rohnert Park		04/02/2007
Summary:	Wendy Audiss, Applicant v. City of Rohnert Park, Redwood Empire Insurance Fund, Defendants W. C. A. B. No. SRO 0137956--WCAB Panel: Deputy Commissioner Hannigan, Commissioners Caplane, Murray (concurring, but not signing) Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Panel Decision) Opinion Filed April 2, 2007 Opinion By: Deputy Commissioner Dennis J. Hannigan OPINION: OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION Defendant, City of Rohnert Park, permissibly self-insured, seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award, issued January 8, 2007, in which a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) awarded applicant, Wendy Audiss, 3% permanent disability and further medical treatment pursuant to the parties' Stipulations with Request for Award. Statement of Facts Applicant sustained an admitted industrial cumulative injury to her right wrist over the period ending October 26, 2005, while employed by the City of Rohnert Park as a Recreation Supervisor. She received medical treatment through the Occupational Health Clinic at Kaiser Permanente in Rohnert Park. AWARD AWARD IS MADE is favor of WENDY AUDISS, and against CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, permissibly self-insured, as follows: A. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD Deputy Commissioner Dennis J. Hannigan I concur, Commissioner Ronnie G. Caplane Commissioner Janice Jamison Murray (concurring, but not signing) ===========Footnotes=========== .
Note:	Defendant is entitled to the benefit of Labor Code section 4658(d)(3)(A), as agreed upon by the parties in their Stipulated Award.
Citation:	SRO 0137956
WCC Citation:	WCC 34392007 CA

Case Name:	Avalon Bay Foods v. WCAB		08/20/1998
Summary:	Avalon Bay Foods v. Workers' Comp. AVALON BAY FOODS et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and ROBERT MOORE, Respondents. For that reason, they are subject to the 60-day time limit for payment applicable to other medical treatment benefits. I In February 1995, petitioner Robert Moore, while employed as a food production worker for Avalon Bay Foods, suffered injury to his left leg ultimately resulting in amputation below the knee. The workers' compensation judge ruled that ITT Hartford unreasonably delayed payment of the medical treatment transportation benefit.
Note:	No penalty if reimbursable medical expense paid within 60 days of receipt.
Citation:	18 Cal.4th 1165, 63 CCC 902
WCC Citation:	WCC 3951998 CA

Case Name:	Aveni v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners		01/24/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) No. C052955 January 24, 2008 MICHAEL D. AVENI, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. The Board of Chiropractic Examiners (the Board) brought a disciplinary action against Michael Aveni, D. C. , alleging unprofessional conduct and sexual misconduct in the treatment of several female patients. *fn1 In response to the allegations, Aveni wrote a letter to the investigator for the Board, denying any inappropriate behavior. One day she invited Aveni and his wife over for lunch so a neighbor could give them massages. S. F. was hoping Aveni would hire the neighbor. Further, Carlisle would confirm C. K. did not complain about Aveni and Carlisle subsequently referred clients to Aveni, showing his trust and confidence in Aveni.
Note:	An incorrect interpretation of the law arrived at by the application of an incorrect legal theory cannot invalidate an administrative determination otherwise correct in result.
Citation:	C052955
WCC Citation:	WCC 33062008 CA

Case Name:	Avila v. WCAB		12/30/1970
Summary:	LEONIDES AVILA, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, B. S. BAINS et al. , Respondents (Opinion by Friedman, J. , with Pierce, P. J. , and Janes, J. , concurring. )1 Before the accident Mr. Avila, the applicant, had a permanent deformity of the right hip and leg as the result of an inflammatory disease during childhood. Nevertheless, he made a living as a farm laborer, picking and thinning fruit and ground crops and pruning trees. His hip and leg condition appears to have been stationary; at least, there is no evidence that it was progressive. [1a] Mr. Avila claims that his condition before the accident did not disable him from pursuing his occupation; thus, that this is a 'lighting up' [14 Cal. App. 3d 37] case, chargeable entirely to the job in which the accident occurred.
Note:	PD when impairment of earning capacity or normal use of a member, or handicap in labor mkt.
Citation:	14 Cal.App.3d 33, 35 CCC 637
WCC Citation:	WCC 25111970 CA

Case Name:	Avila-Gonzalez v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board		10/07/2010
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO No. A126429 October 7, 2010 ARMANDO AVILA-GONZALEZ, PETITIONER, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD AND BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC. , RESPONDENTS. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. Petitioner Armando Avila-Gonzalez petitions for review of an order by a divided panel of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board). In many instances, the 2005 PDRS reduces the amount of compensation a worker will receive for a permanent disability. In its opinion, the Board also stated that Dr. Taylor's November 2004 report was "not an indication of permanent disability. "If so, the Board should apply the 1997 PDRS; if not, the Board should apply the 2005 PDRS.
Note:	Faced with conflicting case law about what needs to be present in a doctor's report for the 1997 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule to apply, the 1st District Court of Appeal on Thursday sided with the Genlyte decision and remanded back to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board for a decision about whether a medical report written before 2005 stated that the applicant was permanently disabled.
Citation:	A126429
WCC Citation:	WCC 36762010 CA