Case Name:	Bryer v. Santa Cruz Pasta Factory		09/15/1995
Summary:	JANET BRYER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SANTA CRUZ PASTA FACTORY, Defendant and Respondent. (Superior Court of Santa Cruz County, No. 124423, Robert B. Yonts, Judge. )Defendant submitted affidavits which established that defendant had purchased the pasta machine secondhand and had never 'received information of any kind' from the manufacturer of the pasta machine. Defendant's affidavits established that there were no communications between the manufacturer of the pasta machine and defendant. The only express communications defendant received regarding the pasta machine were the representations of the individual who sold the machine to defendant.
Note:	Dicussing level of necessary proof that manufacturer conveyed information to employer
Citation:	38 Cal.App.4th 1711, 60 CCC 944
WCC Citation:	WCC 24231995 CA

Case Name:	Buchmiller v. Hines Nurseries		07/11/2008
Summary:	According to the facts alleged in the complaint, Buchmiller began employment as a shop manager for Hines in December of 1999. In support of its motion, Hines relied upon the following facts, which Buchmiller admitted were undisputed: First, that in June of 2003, after Buchmiller had returned to work with restrictions following his surgery, Hines' workers' compensation insurer commissioned a formal analysis of the requirements of Buchmiller's shop manager position. Despite these infirmities in Hines' claim that Buchmiller affirmatively "resigned" his employment, we nonetheless conclude the undisputed evidence demonstrates Hines did not terminate the employment as alleged in Buchmiller's complaint. Technically, Buchmiller did not admit the facts alleged by Hines in connection with either the physician's report or the job analysis report in his response to Hines' separate statement. Buchmiller also asserts that "[n]othing in Hines' answer suggests there was no termination," and complains that Hines failed to specifically assert that contention as an affirmative defense.
Note:	[Unpublished] Buchmiller has not raised any triable issue of fact in support of the claimed discrimination. The undisputed facts demonstrate that in the period leading up to the alleged termination of his employment, Buchmiller's physician had concluded he could not perform the duties of his shop manager position, and that Hines had no other permanent alternative or modified work to offer him.
Citation:	G038463
WCC Citation:	WCC 33972008 CA

Case Name:	Buescher v. WCAB		09/06/1968
Summary:	ROSE E. BUESCHER, Petitioner, v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, STATE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION et al. , Respondents. Petitioner is the surviving widow of Henry J. Buescher, who died June 15, 1965, as a result of a heart attack. 2 Dr. Eliot Sorsky and petitioner testified for the petitioner, and Dr. William L. Adams, Jr. , testified for defendants. The pertinent finding was that Henry J. Buescher '. . . sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of his employment proximately resulting in his death on June 15, 1965. 'But the body of the petition did not state with specificity that the petition was brought on behalf of the Retirement System.
Note:	Board had jurisdiction and duty to grant reconsideration if it disagreed with findings of referee.
Citation:	265 Cal.App.2d 520, 33 CCC 537
WCC Citation:	WCC 26511968 CA

Case Name:	Burbank Studios v. WCAB		08/11/1982
Summary:	Facts The facts pertinent to this appeal are as follows: On or about June 21, 1979, August Yount (Yount or applicant) filed an application for adjudication of claim, alleging an injury on May 11, 1979, to his right arm while employed by Burbank Studios (Burbank Studios or Employer), permissibly self-insured for workers' compensation benefits. Burbank Studios denied any injury arising out of or occurring in the course of Yount's employment. In a letter dated April 1, 1981, Burbank Studios responded in relevant part as follows: 'Petitioner The Burbank Studios herein acknowledges receipt of this Board's Order Granting Reconsideration served on March 25, 1981. In its petition for reconsideration, Burbank Studios contended that the WCJ had exceeded her jurisdiction in striking the language from the addendum. We are not suggesting that some form of conditional action could not be taken by the WCAB provided Burbank Studios had the right to accept or reject the proposal and rejection would return the parties to their previous status quo.
Note:	Board may not rewrite a C&R, limited to approval/disapproval.
Citation:	134 Cal.App.3d 929, 47 CCC 832
WCC Citation:	WCC 27461982 CA

Case Name:	Burch v. WCAB (UPS)		04/16/1998
Summary:	Steven Burch, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, United Parcel Service, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Respondents. The WCAB granted reconsideration and examined the issue of whether the Rehab. WCAB concluded that employers are required to comply with the Code and all relevant regulations in terminating liability for rehab. WCAB noted that UPS had been denied the opportunity to present other evidence that could establish that it had, indeed, offered modified or alternative work. Applicant then filed a Petition for Writ of Review after the WCAB issued its decision.
Note:	Despite inability to produce RU-94 form proving applicant had been offered modified work, employer can produce other evidence of such offer.
Citation:	63 CCC 606
WCC Citation:	WCC 27921998 CA

Case Name:	Burnham v. WCAB		05/09/2008
Summary:	Ultimately the WCAB determined the new disability schedule applied and found Burnham had no permanent disability. Burnham appeals, contending the WCAB lacked authority to grant the City's second petition for reconsideration and erred in interpreting the statute implementing the new disability schedule. The WCJ found the new disability schedule should apply and that Burnham failed to establish any exceptions under section 4660, subdivision (d). Burnham sought reconsideration with the WCAB on August 14, 2006. Therefore, according to Burnham, the WCAB's third order was functus officio [of no further force or authority] since the jurisdiction of the WCAB was exhausted.
Note:	[Unpublished] Good cause sufficient to invoke section 5803 may consist of newly discovered evidence that was previously unavailable, a change in the law, or any factor or circumstance unknown at the time the original award or order was made that renders the previous findings and award inequitable.
Citation:	C055988
WCC Citation:	WCC 33542008 CA

Case Name:	Burns v. WCAB		03/25/1987
Summary:	JAMES BURNS, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondents. On March 10, 1984, applicant was granted a disability retirement under the CERL as a result of the industrial injury. He receives approximately $1,600 per month from the CERL disability pension and a similar amount from the PERS service pension. In his opinion on decision, he explained that he based his decision on Labor Code section 4853 and Gorman v. Workers' Comp. Applicant contends that County may not disallow VRTD because the injured worker is receiving a PERS service pension.
Note:	Sheriff not limited to VRTD while simultaneously receiving pension from prior employer.
Citation:	190 CAL.APP.3D 759, 52 CCC 111
WCC Citation:	WCC 26881987 CA

Case Name:	Bussard vs. Minimed		01/23/2003
Summary:	BARBARA BUSSARD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MINIMED, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. Page 2} OPINION RUBIN, J. - Appellant Barbara Bussard appeals from summary judgment for respondent Minimed, Inc. After review, we hold the "going-and-coming" exception to the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to an employee while she is driving home after becoming sick at work from exposure to pesticide fumes. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND On March 22, 2000, respondent Minimed hired a pest control company to spray pesticide overnight to eliminate fleas at respondent's facility. Around 7:00 a. m. the next day, Minimed clerical employee Irma Hernandez arrived for work. While in route, she rear ended appellant Barbara Bussard, who was stopped at a red light.
Note:	Employer liable to third party from accident by employee sent home due to illness incurred at work.
Citation:	105 Cal.App.4th 798, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 675
WCC Citation:	WCC 29142003 CA

Case Name:	Butler v. Direct TV		10/08/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO ROBERT BUTLER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DIRECT TV, Defendant and Respondent. Appellant Robert Butler (Butler) sued respondent DIRECTV, Inc. (DIRECTV) for disability discrimination. On June 14, 2005, Butler informed Veazie that his doctor was going to release him to work part-time. DIRECTV was not required to provide Butler with a part-time position, and Butler could not work full-time. After Butler spoke to Veazie, Veazie asked Rodriguez if Butler could be accommodated.
Note:	[Unpublished] DIRECTV was not required to provide Butler with a part-time position, and Butler could not work full-time. As a result, a reasonable accommodation was not available and DIRECTV cannot be held liable for failing to engage in an interactive process.
Citation:	B201173
WCC Citation:	WCC 34342008 CA