Case Name:	Bakersfield City School Dist. v. WCAB		09/21/2007
Summary:	Filed 9/21/07 Bakersfield City School Dist. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT BAKERSFIELD CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT et al. , Petitioners, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and ROBERT BOYD, Respondents. -ooOoo- The Bakersfield City School District (School District) petitions for a writ of review from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). On August 31, 2006, Boyd was traveling in a School District vehicle from Thorner Elementary School to his next assignment at Voorhies Elementary School. As Boyd appropriately observes, none of the cases cited by the WCAB and the School District limit workers' compensation recovery to only the circumstances presented.
Note:	[Unpublished] In light of his perception of danger to schools in the vicinity, combined with an absence of a specific employment policy prohibiting his conduct, the employee acted reasonably when engaging in a minor deviation from the course of his employment to assist the police in apprehending a fleeing suspect.
Citation:	72 CCC 1191
WCC Citation:	WCC 32572007 CA

Case Name:	Ballester v. Ecolab		02/23/2011
Summary:	ANTHONY BALLESTER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ECOLAB, INC. , Defendant and Respondent. BACKGROUND This lawsuit concerns Anthony Ballester's termination from his employment with Ecolab, Inc. Ballester claims his termination was due to a fraudulent report of his poor performance by his immediate supervisor, which was then ratified by Ecolab managers and corporate officers. He sued Ecolab as a result of his termination, seeking compensatory and punitive damages and reinstatement to his position. In addition, Ecolab argued the second amended complaint failed to state a claim for fraud because it did not and could not allege that Ballester relied on the allegedly fraudulent performance report. Finally, Ecolab argued that, as a matter of law, Ballester could not amend his complaint because workers' compensation provided his exclusive remedy.
Note:	A terminated employee's suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress contained allegations that were insufficient to avoid the bar of exclusive remedy.
Citation:	A129073
WCC Citation:	WCC 37162011 CA

Case Name:	Barba v. Wal-Mart Transportation		03/01/2010
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN ROBERT JOSEPH BARBA, SR. , Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WAL-MART TRANSPORTATION, LLC, et al. , Defendants and Appellants. After several weeks of physical therapy and follow-up visits with Dr. Tuazon, he referred Barba to Dr. Bruce Brown. Dr. Brown recommended Barba continue physical therapy and taking his medication and cleared Barba to return to work, but restricted to light duty. After more physical therapy Barba was returned to full duty in late 2005 even though, according to Barba, he was still in pain in his "back area," again defined by Barba to include his shoulder. *fn5 Dr. Sohn, who examined Barba on February 7, 2007, concluded Barba's shoulder injury had been caused by the accident.
Note:	[Unpublished] An employer's action for reimbursement against a third party tortfeasor is limited to recovery for damages proximately caused by the injury.
Citation:	B213376
WCC Citation:	WCC 36052010 CA

Case Name:	Barboza v. Webcor Construction		12/31/1969
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR .             FERNANDO BARBOZA, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION L. P. , Defendant and Respondent. .             A147144 .             (Alameda County Super. INTRODUCTION .             Appellant Fernando Barboza appeals the trial court’s award of summary judgment in favor of his former employer, Webcor Construction L. P. Barboza alleged employment discrimination based upon his termination three months after a workplace injury. .             The workers’ compensation manager for Webcor, Danielle DiRicco, stated that Barboza never requested leave or accommodation. .           After February 12, 2013, and until his termination, Barboza never sought healthcare treatment for his injuries from the February 5 accident.
Note:	A California appellate court ruled that a construction worker failed to establish his claims for violation of the California Family Rights Act and the Fair Employment and Housing Act following an on-the-job injury.
Citation:	A147144
WCC Citation:	Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG14737311

Case Name:	Barclay v. Jesse M. Lange Distributor, Inc.		05/11/2005
Summary:	Plaintiff Randall Barclay was injured by an explosion while working for his employer (nonparty Chico Drain Oil), cleaning fuel tanks on land owned by defendant Jesse M. Lange Distributor, Inc. (Lange), which is in the business of storing and selling gasoline to commercial and agricultural customers. The Summary Judgment Motion On May 2, 2002, Lange filed a motion for summary judgment on the complaint and cross-complaints filed against Lange by other defendants. The Reply On October 3, 2002, Lange filed a reply, which said nothing about causation or plaintiff's asserted facts. V. The Ruling On January 6, 2003, the trial court issued a written ruling granting summary judgment in favor of Lange. Here, plaintiff's focus is on arguing that Lange contributed to the hazard, not that Lange directly caused the explosion.
Note:	Property owner may be liable for injuries to independent contractor's employee where there was a breach in non-delegable regulatory duty.
Citation:	129 Cal.App.4th 281
WCC Citation:	WCC 30982005 CA

Case Name:	Barnes v. State Compensation Ins. Fund CA		11/19/2019
Summary:	Margie R. Lariviere, Anthony Lewis, Gina Marie Ong, Linda S. Platisha and Gary R. Soliman for Defendant and Respondent State Compensation Insurance Fund. Barnes also purports to appeal from the trial court’s minute order sustaining the demurrer of State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF). Both seemingly allege defendants conspired to defraud Barnes of his workers’ compensation benefits, as follows. In April 1993,     We state the facts as alleged in the complaint and include background facts where needed as described in Barnes v. Workers’ Comp. At that point, SCIF’s attorney Nelson and Barnes were sent to the presiding judge to seek a continuance.
Note:
Citation:	NC061385
WCC Citation:	Barnes v. State Compensation Ins. Fund CA 2/3

Case Name:	Barnes v. WCAB		07/10/2000
Summary:	RONNIE BARNES, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT et al. , Respondents. [23 Cal. 4th 681] COUNSEL Ronnie Barnes, in pro. (Neither applicant nor the record of proceedings explains the basis for EDD's alleged failure to comply with the provisional award. )Dr. Feiwell prepared a second report on June 17, 1996, after reviewing a '24 inch stack of [applicant's] medical records. 'A hearing on the petition to terminate liability was held on March 5, 1998, before Workers' Compensation Referee (WCR) Louie.
Note:	CA. Supreme Ct. rules that Sec. 5803 is still subject to Sec. 5804's strict limitation period.
Citation:	23 Cal.4th 679, 65 CCC 78
WCC Citation:	WCC 26452000 CA

Case Name:	Barney v. National Gypsum Co.		09/15/2011
Summary:	In May 2007, decedent Timothy Barney died while repairing a conveyer system on NGI, Inc. 's (National Gypsum) property. In May 2008, plaintiffs Michelle Barney, Christina Barney, and others (collectively plaintiffs) filed a workers' compensation action against National Gypsum and Jenson Mechanical (Jenson) alleging Barney was an employee of both companies when he sustained injuries causing his death. Approximately one year later, plaintiffs filed a wrongful death lawsuit against National Gypsum in Contra Costa County Superior Court alleging Barney was an employee of Jenson "working at" property owned by National Gypsum. The allegations in plaintiffs' complaint mirrored the allegations in their workers' compensation petition, except that plaintiffs alleged Barney was an employee of Jenson not National Gypsum and that he was "working at" property owned by National Gypsum when he fell from the conveyer system. According to plaintiffs, their dismissal of National Gypsum from the workers' compensation action meant there was "no other action pending involving National [Gypsum].
Note:	A decedent's survivors could not avoid a stay on their wrongful death lawsuit by dismissing their workers' compensation claim against the decedent's potential employer.
Citation:	A128854
WCC Citation:	WCC 38012011 CA

Case Name:	Baroid v. WCAB		07/14/1981
Summary:	N. L. BAROID, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and THOMAS G. HANCOCK, Respondents. The WCAB has found that applicant's injury is compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act. Applicant and the WCAB, however, assert that the injury is compensable under one or more exceptions to the going and coming rule. Relying upon the above analysis of the workers' compensation judge, the WCAB denied reconsideration. The workers' compensation judge's decision, which the WCAB adopted, here relies specifically upon L. A. Jewish etc. Council v. Ind.
Note:	Discussion of exceptions to 'going and coming' rule.
Citation:	121 C.A.3d 558
WCC Citation:	WCC 28531981 CA

Case Name:	Barr v. WCAB		06/23/2008
Summary:	We conclude the WCAB retains discretion to award costs whether or not the report itself is admissible. Because the WCAB failed to exercise its discretion in Barr's case by erroneously finding that an inadmissible report precludes an award of costs as a matter of law, we remand the case to the WCAB to exercise its discretion. FACTS Jim Barr had preexisting injuries when, in August 1999, he sustained additional injuries while working for Maita Oldsmobile Body Shop as an estimator. We now address whether the WCAB has the discretion to award costs for the preparation of a vocational rehabilitation consultant's report. Because these costs are not defined by statute, the WCAB and SIF venture far and wide to resolve our narrow issue.
Note:	The WCAB retains discretion to award costs under Labor Code section 5811, whether or not a vocational rehabilitation consultant's report itself is admissible under Labor Code section 5703.
Citation:	C054907
WCC Citation:	WCC 33872008 CA